Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Structured Psychological Support for people with probable personality disorder in mental health services in England: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based psychological treatments for people with personality disorder usually involve attending group-based sessions over many months. Low-intensity psychological interventions of less than 6 months duration have been developed, but their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are unclear. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, researcher-masked, superiority trial. Study participants will be aged 18 and over, have probable personality disorder and be treated by mental health staff in seven centres in England. We will exclude people who are: unwilling or unable to provide written informed consent, have a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder, or are already receiving psychological treatment for personality disorder or on a waiting list for such treatment. In the intervention group, participants will be offered up to 10 individual sessions of Structured Psychological Support. In the control group, participants will be offered treatment as usual plus a single session of personalised crisis planning. The primary outcome is social functioning measured over 12 months using total score on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). Secondary outcomes include mental health, suicidal behaviour, health-related quality of life, patient-rated global improvement and satisfaction, and resource use and costs. The primary analysis will compare WSAS scores across the 12-month period using a general linear mixed model adjusting for baseline scores, allocation group and study centre on an intention-to-treat basis. In a parallel process evaluation, we will analyse qualitative data from interviews with study participants, clinical staff and researchers to examine mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study complies with the Helsinki Declaration II and is approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID 315951). Study findings will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal; and disseminated at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13918289.

Severe COVID anxiety among adults in the United Kingdom: cohort study and nested feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: People with severe COVID anxiety have poor mental health and impaired functioning, but the course of severe COVID anxiety is unknown and the quality of evidence on the acceptability and impact of psychological interventions is low. METHODS: A quantitative cohort study with a nested feasibility trial. Potential participants aged 18 and over, living in the UK with severe COVID anxiety, were recruited online and from primary care services. We examined levels of COVID anxiety in the six months after recruitment, and factors that influenced this, using linear regression. Those scoring above 20 on the short Health Anxiety Inventory were invited to participate in a feasibility trial of remotely delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Health Anxiety (CBT-HA). Exclusion criteria were recent COVID-19, current self-isolation, or current receipt of psychological treatment. Key outcomes for the feasibility trial were the level of uptake of CBT-HA and the rate of follow-up. RESULTS: 204 (70.2%) of 285 people who took part in the cohort study completed the six month follow-up, for whom levels of COVID anxiety fell from 12.4 at baseline to 6.8 at six months (difference = -5.5, 95% CI = -6.0 to -4.9). Reductions in COVID anxiety were lower among older people, those living with a vulnerable person, those with lower baseline COVID anxiety, and those with higher levels of generalised anxiety and health anxiety at baseline. 36 (90%) of 40 participants enrolled in the nested feasibility trial were followed up at six months. 17 (80.9%) of 21 people in the active arm of the trial received four or more sessions of CBT-HA. We found improved mental health and social functioning among those in the active, but not the control arm of the trial (Mean difference in total score on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale between baseline and follow up, was 9.7 (95% CI = 5.8-13.6) among those in the active, and 1.0 (95% C.I. = -4.6 to 6.6) among those in the control arm of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: While the mental health of people with severe COVID anxiety appears to improve over time, many continue to experience high levels of anxiety and poor social functioning. Health anxiety is highly prevalent among people with severe COVID anxiety and may provide a target for psychological treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at ISRCTN14973494 on 09/09/2021.

The association of severe COVID anxiety with poor social functioning, quality of life, and protective behaviours among adults in United Kingdom: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety about COVID-19 is common. For most people this is an appropriate response to the loss of livelihoods and loved-ones, disruptions to social networks, and uncertainty about the future. However, for others these anxieties relate to contracting the virus itself, a phenomenon termed COVID anxiety. Little is known about the characteristics of people with severe COVID anxiety or the impact it has on their daily lives. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase cross-sectional survey of people aged 18 or over who were living in United Kingdom, self-identified as anxious about COVID-19, and had a score of ≥9 on the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. We recruited participants nationally through online adverts and locally via primary care services in London. Data on demographic and clinical factors were used in multiple regression modelling to examine the greatest contributors to functional impairment, poor health-related quality of life and protective behaviours in this sample of individuals with severe COVID anxiety. RESULTS: We recruited 306 people with severe COVID anxiety between January and September 2021. Most were female (n = 246, 81.2%); they had a median age of 41 (range = 18-83). The majority of participants also had generalised anxiety (n = 270, 91.5%), depression (n = 247, 85.5%), and a quarter (n = 79, 26.3%) reported a physical health condition which put them at increased risk of hospitalisation with COVID-19. Half had severe social dysfunction (n = 151, 52.4%). One in ten reported never leaving their home, one in three washed all items brought into their house, one in five washed their hands constantly, and one in five of those with children reported not sending them to school because of fears of COVID-19. Increasing co-morbid depressive symptoms best explained functional impairment and poor quality of life after controlling for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high degree of co-occuring mental health problems, and the extent of functional impairment and poor health-related quality of life among people with severe COVID anxiety. Further research is needed to establish the course of severe COVID anxiety as the pandemic progresses, and steps that can be taken to support people who experience this distress.

Barriers to the management of sexual dysfunction among people with psychosis: analysis of qualitative data from the REMEDY trial.

BACKGROUND: More than half of people who use antipsychotic medication for psychosis report having sexual dysfunction. The REMEDY trial aimed to find out if switching antipsychotic medication provides an effective way to reduce sexual dysfunction among people with psychosis. We set out to recruit 216 participants over a two-year period, but recruitment was stopped after an extended 12-month pilot phase, during which we recruited only 10 participants. As part of a nested process evaluation, we conducted qualitative interviews with front-line clinicians to examine barriers to recruitment to the trial. METHODS: We developed a semi-structured interview schedule to explore staff views on factors that influenced whether they referred potential participants to the study. We interviewed a purposive sample of 51 staff from four National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, ensuring a range of different backgrounds, seniority, and levels of involvement in the trial. Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed for verbatim, and data were analysed using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nine interconnected themes were generated. Six themes concerned barriers to recruitment; including; prioritising patients' mental stability, mutual discomfort and embarrassment about discussing a "taboo" subject, and concerns about unintended consequences of asking people with psychosis about their sexual functioning. Three themes, including the quality of treatment relationships and strategies for opening dialogue suggested ways to improve recognition of these "hidden" side effects. CONCLUSION: The identification and management of sexual dysfunction among people with psychosis are not priorities for mental health services in England at this time. Many staff working in front-line services feel unprepared and uncomfortable asking people with psychosis about these problems. While greater use of screening tools may improve the identification of sexual dysfunction among people with psychosis, the evaluation and implementation of interventions to manage them will continue to be challenging unless NHS leaders and senior clinicians demonstrate greater commitment to changing current clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307891.

The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of clozapine for inpatients with severe borderline personality disorder (CALMED study): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Data from case series suggest that clozapine may benefit inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), but randomised trials have not been conducted. Methods: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 222 inpatients with severe BPD aged 18 or over, who had failed to respond to other antipsychotic medications. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to receive up to 400 mg of clozapine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomisation service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-harm, aggression, resource use and costs, side effects and adverse events. We used a modified intention to treat analysis (mITT) restricted to those who took one or more dose of trial medication, using a general linear model fitted at 6 months adjusted for baseline score, allocation group and site. Results: The study closed early due to poor recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 29 study participants, 24 (83%) were followed up at 6 months, of whom 21 (72%) were included in the mITT analysis. At 6 months, 11 (73%) participants assigned to clozapine and 6 (43%) of those assigned to placebo were still taking trial medication. Adjusted difference in mean total ZAN-BPD score at 6 months was -3.86 (95% Confidence Intervals = -10.04 to 2.32). There were 14 serious adverse events; 6 in the clozapine arm and 8 in the placebo arm of the trial. There was little difference in the cost of care between groups. Interpretation: We recruited insufficient participants to test the primary hypothesis. The study findings highlight problems in conducting placebo-controlled trials of clozapine and in using clozapine for people with BPD, outside specialist inpatient mental health units. Trial registration: ISRCTN18352058. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18352058.

Severe COVID-19 anxiety among adults in the UK: protocol for a cohort study and nested feasibility trial of modified cognitive-behavioural therapy for health anxiety.

INTRODUCTION: Some people are so anxious about COVID-19 that it impairs their functioning. However, little is known about the course of severe COVID-19 anxiety or what can be done to help people who experience it. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cohort study with a nested feasibility trial with follow-up at 3 and 6 months. We recruited 306 people who were aged 18 and over, lived in the UK and had severe COVID-19 anxiety (indicated by a score of 9 or more on the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS)). To take part in the nested feasibility trial, participants also had to have a score of 20 or more on the Short Health Anxiety Inventory. We excluded people from the trial if they had had COVID-19 within the previous 4 weeks, if they were currently self-isolating or if they were already receiving psychological treatment.We publicised the study nationally through adverts, social media and posts on message boards. We also recruited participants via clinicians working in primary and secondary care NHS services in London. All those in the active arm will be offered 5-10 sessions of remotely delivered modified cognitive-behavioural therapy for health anxiety (CBT-HA). We will examine the proportion of participants who remain above threshold on the CAS at 3 and 6 months and factors that influence levels of COVID-19 anxiety over 6 months using mixed effects logistic regression. The key feasibility metrics for the nested trial are the level of uptake of CBT-HA and the rate of follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (reference: 20/EM/0238). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14973494.

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.

Risperidone versus placebo for aggression following traumatic brain injury: a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a feasibility randomised controlled trial of risperidone for the treatment of aggression in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel design, placebo controlled (1:1 ratio) double-blind feasibility trial with an embedded process evaluation. No statistical comparison was performed between the two study groups. SETTING: Four neuropsychiatric and neurology outpatient clinics in London and Kent, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Our aim was to recruit 50 patients with TBI over 18 months. Follow-up participants at 12 weeks using a battery of assessment scales to measure changes in aggressive behaviour and irritability (Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS)-primary outcome, Irritability Questionnaire) as well as global functioning (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended, Clinical Global impression) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, SF-12), mental health (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and medication adverse effects (Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser). RESULTS: Six participants were randomised to the active arm of the trial and eight to the placebo arm over a 10-month period (28% of our target). Two participants withdrew because of adverse events. Twelve out of 14 (85.7%) patients completed a follow-up assessment at 12 weeks. At follow-up, the scores of all outcome measures improved in both groups. Placebo group showed numerically better score change according to the primary outcome MOAS. No severe adverse events were reported. The overall rate of adverse events remained low. Data from the process evaluation suggest that existence of specialised TBI follow-up clinics, availability of a dedicated database of TBI patients' clinical details, simple study procedures and regular support to participants would enhance recruitment and retention in the trial. Feedback from participants showed that once in the study, they did not find the trial procedure onerous. CONCLUSIONS: It was not feasible to conduct a successful randomised trial of risperidone versus placebo for post-TBI aggression using the methods we deployed in this study. It is not possible to draw any definitive conclusion about risperidone's efficacy from such a small trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30191436.

Amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for treatment-refractory schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A second antipsychotic is commonly added to clozapine to treat refractory schizophrenia, notwithstanding the limited evidence to support such practice. METHODS: The efficacy and adverse effects of this pharmacological strategy were examined in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week randomized trial of clozapine augmentation with amisulpride, involving 68 adults with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and persistent symptoms despite a predefined trial of clozapine. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the amisulpride and placebo groups on the primary outcome measure (clinical response defined as a 20% reduction in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score) or other mental state measures. However, the trial under recruited and was therefore underpowered to detect differences in the primary outcome, meaning that acceptance of the null hypothesis carries an increased risk of type II error. The findings suggested that amisulpride-treated participants were more likely to fulfil the clinical response criterion, odds ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.40-3.42) and have a greater reduction in negative symptoms, but these numerical differences were not statistically significant and only evident at 12 weeks. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the amisulpride group had at least one adverse event compared with the control group (p = 0.014), and these were more likely to be cardiac symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for more than 6 weeks may be required for an adequate trial of clozapine augmentation with amisulpride. The greater side-effect burden associated with this treatment strategy highlights the need for safety and tolerability monitoring, including vigilance for indicators of cardiac abnormalities, when it is used in either a clinical or research setting.

Aggression Following Traumatic brain injury: Effectiveness of Risperidone (AFTER): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health concern and many people develop long-lasting physical and neuropsychiatric consequences following a TBI. Despite the emphasis on physical rehabilitation, it is the emotional and behavioural consequences that have greater impact on people with TBI and their families. One such problem behaviour is aggression which can be directed towards others, towards property or towards the self. Aggression is reported to be common after TBI (37-71%) and causes major stress for patients and their families. Both drug and non-drug interventions are used to manage this challenging behaviour, but the evidence-base for these interventions is poor and no drugs are currently licensed for the treatment of aggression following TBI. The most commonly used drugs for this purpose are antipsychotics, particularly second-generation drugs such as risperidone. Despite this widespread use, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antipsychotic drugs, including risperidone, have not been conducted. We have, therefore, set out to test the feasibility of conducting an RCT of this drug for people who have aggressive behaviour following TBI. METHODS/DESIGN: We will examine the feasibility of conducting a placebo-controlled, double-blind RCT of risperidone for the management of aggression in adults with TBI and also assess participants' views about their experience of taking part in the study. We will randomise 50 TBI patients from secondary care services in four centres in London and Kent to up to 4 mg of risperidone orally or an inert placebo and follow them up 12 weeks later. Participants will be randomised to active or control treatment in a 1:1 ratio via an external and remote web-based randomisation service. Participants will be assessed at baseline and 12-week follow-up using a battery of assessment scales to measure changes in aggressive behaviour (MOAS, IRQ) as well as global functioning (GOS-E, CGI), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, SF-12) and mental health (HADS). We will also assess the adverse effect profile with a standard scale (UKU) and collect available data from medical records on blood tests (serum glucose/HbA1c, lipid profile, prolactin), and check body weight and blood pressure. In addition completion of the MOAS and a check for any new or worsening side-effect will be completed weekly and used by the prescribing clinician to determine continuing dosage. Family carers' wellbeing will be assessed with CWSQ. Service use will be recorded using CSRI. A process evaluation will be carried out at the end of the trial using both qualitative and quantitative methodology. DISCUSSION: Aggressive behaviour causes immense distress among some people with TBI and their families. By examining the feasibility of a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT, we aim to discover whether this approach can successfully be used to test the effects of risperidone for the treatment of aggressive behaviour among people with aggression following TBI and improve the evidence base for the treatment of these symptoms. Our criteria for demonstrating success of the feasibility study are: (1) recruitment of at least 80% of the study sample, (2) uptake of intervention by at least 80% of participants in the active arm of the trial and (3) completion of follow-up interviews at 12 weeks by at least 75% of the study participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN30191436 . Registered on 19 December 2016.

The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Lamotrigine in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 and November 2016, the authors recruited 276 people age 18 or over who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Individuals with coexisting bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, and women at risk of pregnancy were excluded. A web-based randomization service was used to allocate participants randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an inert placebo or up to 400 mg/day of lamotrigine. The primary outcome measure was score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those in the lamotrigine group and 58 (42%) of those in the placebo group were taking study medication. The mean ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD=6.6) among those in the lamotrigine group and 11.5 (SD=7.7) among those in the placebo group (adjusted difference in means=0.1, 95% CI=-1.8, 2.0). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Lamotrigine for people with borderline personality disorder: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: No drug treatments are currently licensed for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite this, people with this condition are frequently prescribed psychotropic medications and often with considerable polypharmacy. Preliminary studies have indicated that mood stabilisers may be of benefit to people with BPD. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine for people with BPD. DESIGN: A two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled individually randomised trial of lamotrigine versus placebo. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote web-based service using permuted blocks and stratified by study centre, the severity of personality disorder and the extent of hypomanic symptoms. SETTING: Secondary care NHS mental health services in six centres in England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, meet diagnostic criteria for BPD and provide written informed consent. We excluded people with coexisting psychosis or bipolar affective disorder, those already taking a mood stabiliser, those who spoke insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who were pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 200 mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo. Women taking combined oral contraceptives were prescribed up to 400 mg of trial medication per day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 12, 24 and 52 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was the total score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment and adverse events. Higher scores on all measures indicate poorer outcomes. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and October 2015 we randomised 276 participants, of whom 195 (70.6%) were followed up 52 weeks later. At 52 weeks, 49 (36%) of those participants prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. At 52 weeks, the mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 [standard deviation (SD) 6.6] among those participants randomised to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD 7.7) among those participants randomised to placebo (adjusted mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.0; p = 0.91). No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were seen at any time. Adjusted costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. LIMITATIONS: Levels of adherence in this pragmatic trial were low, but greater adherence was not associated with better mental health. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lamotrigine to the usual care of people with BPD was not found to be clinically effective or provide a cost-effective use of resources. FUTURE WORK: Future research into the treatment of BPD should focus on improving the evidence base for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments to help policy-makers make better decisions about investing in specialist treatment services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90916365. FUNDING: Funding for this trial was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Imperial Biomedical Research Centre Facility, which is funded by NIHR, also provided support that has contributed to the research results reported within this paper. Part of Richard Morriss' salary during the project was paid by NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands.

Amisulpride augmentation in clozapine-unresponsive schizophrenia (AMICUS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: When treatment-refractory schizophrenia shows an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine, clinicians commonly add a second antipsychotic, despite the lack of robust evidence to justify this practice. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of the study were to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of clozapine medication with a second antipsychotic, amisulpride, for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. DESIGN: The study was a multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with follow-up at 12 weeks. SETTINGS: The study was set in NHS multidisciplinary teams in adult psychiatry. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were people aged 18-65 years with treatment-resistant schizophrenia unresponsive, at a criterion level of persistent symptom severity and impaired social function, to an adequate trial of clozapine monotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions comprised clozapine augmentation over 12 weeks with amisulpride or placebo. Participants received 400 mg of amisulpride or two matching placebo capsules for the first 4 weeks, after which there was a clinical option to titrate the dosage of amisulpride up to 800 mg or four matching placebo capsules for the remaining 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of 'responders', using a criterion response threshold of a 20% reduction in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. RESULTS: A total of 68 participants were randomised. Compared with the participants assigned to placebo, those receiving amisulpride had a greater chance of being a responder by the 12-week follow-up (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 3.42) and a greater improvement in negative symptoms, although neither finding had been present at 6-week follow-up and neither was statistically significant. Amisulpride was associated with a greater side effect burden, including cardiac side effects. Economic analyses indicated that amisulpride augmentation has the potential to be cost-effective in the short term [net saving of between £329 and £2011; no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and possibly in the longer term. LIMITATIONS: The trial under-recruited and, therefore, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. The economic analyses indicated high uncertainty because of the short duration and relatively small number of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The risk-benefit of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia that has shown an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine monotherapy is worthy of further investigation in larger studies. The size and extent of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination may partly reflect the comprehensive assessment of side effects in this study. The design of future trials of such a treatment strategy should take into account that a clinical response may be not be evident within the 4- to 6-week follow-up period usually considered adequate in studies of antipsychotic treatment of acute psychotic episodes. Economic evaluation indicated the need for larger, longer-term studies to address uncertainty about the extent of savings because of amisulpride and impact on QALYs. The extent and nature of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination has implications for the nature and frequency of safety and tolerability monitoring of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic in both clinical and research settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2010-018963-40 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68824876. 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. 21, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

More haste less speed: A meta-analysis of thinking latencies during planning in people with psychosis.

Cognitive impairment is a core feature of psychosis, with slowed processing speed thought to be a prominent impairment in schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis. However, findings from the Stockings of Cambridge (SOC) planning task suggest changes in processing speed associated with the illness may include faster responses in early stages of planning, though findings are inconsistent. This review uses meta-analytic methods to assess thinking times in psychosis across the available literature. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Eligibility criteria: 1) included a sample of people with non-affective psychosis according to DSM III, DSM IV, DSM V or ICD-10 criteria; 2) employed the SOC task; 3) included a healthy control group; and 4) published in English. We identified 11 studies that employed the SOC task. Results show that people with psychosis have significantly faster initial thinking times than non-clinical participants, but significantly slower subsequent thinking times during problem execution. These findings indicate that differences in processing speed are not limited to slower responses in people with psychosis but may reflect a preference for step-by-step processing rather than planning before task execution. We suggest this style of responding is adopted to compensate for working memory impairment.

Antidepressant Controlled Trial For Negative Symptoms In Schizophrenia (ACTIONS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Negative symptoms of schizophrenia represent deficiencies in emotional responsiveness, motivation, socialisation, speech and movement. When persistent, they are held to account for much of the poor functional outcomes associated with schizophrenia. There are currently no approved pharmacological treatments. While the available evidence suggests that a combination of antipsychotic and antidepressant medication may be effective in treating negative symptoms, it is too limited to allow any firm conclusions. OBJECTIVE: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of antipsychotic medication with the antidepressant citalopram for the management of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Adult psychiatric services, treating people with schizophrenia. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatients or outpatients with schizophrenia, on continuing, stable antipsychotic medication, with persistent negative symptoms at a criterion level of severity. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to treatment with either placebo (one capsule) or 20 mg of citalopram per day for 48 weeks, with the clinical option at 4 weeks to increase the daily dosage to 40 mg of citalopram or two placebo capsules for the remainder of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were quality of life measured at 12 and 48 weeks assessed using the Heinrich's Quality of Life Scale, and negative symptoms at 12 weeks measured on the negative symptom subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. RESULTS: No therapeutic benefit in terms of improvement in quality of life or negative symptoms was detected for citalopram over 12 weeks or at 48 weeks, but secondary analysis suggested modest improvement in the negative symptom domain, avolition/amotivation, at 12 weeks (mean difference -1.3, 95% confidence interval -2.5 to -0.09). There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment arms over 48-week follow-up in either the health economics outcomes or costs, and no differences in the frequency or severity of adverse effects, including corrected QT interval prolongation. LIMITATIONS: The trial under-recruited, partly because cardiac safety concerns about citalopram were raised, with the 62 participants recruited falling well short of the target recruitment of 358. Although this was the largest sample randomised to citalopram in a randomised controlled trial of antidepressant augmentation for negative symptoms of schizophrenia and had the longest follow-up, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. CONCLUSION: Although adjunctive citalopram did not improve negative symptoms overall, there was evidence of some positive effect on avolition/amotivation, recognised as a critical barrier to psychosocial rehabilitation and achieving better social and community functional outcomes. Comprehensive assessment of side-effect burden did not identify any serious safety or tolerability issues. The addition of citalopram as a long-term prescribing strategy for the treatment of negative symptoms may merit further investigation in larger studies. FUTURE WORK: Further studies of the viability of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for negative symptoms in schizophrenia should include appropriate safety monitoring and use rating scales that allow for evaluation of avolition/amotivation as a discrete negative symptom domain. Overcoming the barriers to recruiting an adequate sample size will remain a challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2009-009235-30 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42305247. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Lamotrigine versus inert placebo in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) experience rapid and distressing changes in mood, poor social functioning and have high rates of suicidal behaviour. Several small scale studies suggest that mood stabilizers may produce short-term reductions in symptoms of BPD, but have not been large enough to fully examine clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: A two parallel-arm, placebo controlled randomized trial of usual care plus either lamotrigine or an inert placebo for people aged over 18 who are using mental health services and meet diagnostic criteria for BPD. We will exclude people with comorbid bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, those who speak insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who are pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. Those meeting inclusion criteria and provide written informed consent will be randomized to up to 200mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo (up to 400mg if taking combined oral contraceptives). Participants will be randomized via a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre, severity of personality disorder, and level of bipolarity. Follow-up assessments will be conducted by masked researchers 12, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome is the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD). The secondary outcomes are depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, adverse events and withdrawal of trial medication due to adverse effects. The main analyses will use intention to treat without imputation of missing data. The economic evaluation will take an NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. A cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. DISCUSSION: The evidence base for the use of pharmacological treatments for people with borderline personality disorder is poor. In this trial we will examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine to assess what if any impact offering this has on peoples' mental health, social functioning, and use of other medication and other resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90916365 (registered 01/08/2012).

The effect of cannabis use and cognitive reserve on age at onset and psychosis outcomes in first-episode schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Cannabis use is associated with a younger age at onset of psychosis, an indicator of poor prognosis, but better cognitive function, a positive prognostic indicator. We aimed to clarify the role of age at onset and cognition on outcomes in cannabis users with first-episode schizophrenia as well as the effect of cannabis dose and cessation of use. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients without alcohol or substance abuse other than cannabis were divided into lifetime users and never-users of cannabis and compared on measures of premorbid function, cognition, and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Cannabis users demonstrated better cognition at psychosis onset, which was explained by higher premorbid IQ. They also showed better social function and neither measure changed over the subsequent 15 months. Cannabis users had an earlier age at onset of psychosis, and there was a strong linear relationship between age at first cannabis use and age at onset of both prodromal and psychotic symptoms. Cannabis use spontaneously declined over time with 3-quarters of users giving up altogether. Later age at first cannabis use predicted earlier cessation of use and this in turn was linked to fewer positive psychotic symptoms and days in hospital during the first 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use brings forward the onset of psychosis in people who otherwise have good prognostic features indicating that an early age at onset can be due to a toxic action of cannabis rather than an intrinsically more severe illness. Many patients abstain over time, but in those who persist, psychosis is more difficult to treat.

IQ trajectory, cognitive reserve, and clinical outcome following a first episode of psychosis: a 3-year longitudinal study.

Comparison of current and estimated premorbid IQ in schizophrenia suggests that there are subgroups with low IQ, deteriorated IQ (DIQ), or preserved IQ and that this is established by psychosis onset. There are no controlled studies examining the trajectory of these IQ subgroups longitudinally or their relationship with clinical and social outcomes. Of 129 individuals with first-episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 25% showed stable low IQ, 31% showed stable IQ in the average/high range, and 44% demonstrated intellectual deterioration by 10 points or more. Patients in the low and deteriorated groups were equally impaired on tests of memory and executive function compared with the preserved average/high-IQ group and controls and showed more negative and disorganization symptoms than the preserved average/high-IQ group. Sixty patients and 27 controls were assessed again 1 and 3 years later. There was no evidence that those with IQ deterioration at baseline continued on a declining cognitive trajectory or that those with preserved average/high IQ experienced subsequent IQ decline. The low IQ group showed no change in IQ, whereas both the DIQ and the preserved IQ groups improved. However, the rate of improvement of these 2 subgroups was no greater than that of the healthy controls, suggesting that this reflected practice effects. Both the low and the deteriorated groups had longer index admissions, more core negative symptoms, and worse occupational outcomes at 3 years. These data suggest that following psychosis onset, IQ is stable and that it is IQ at psychosis onset rather than premorbid IQ predicts a more severe illness.

Changes in the frontotemporal cortex and cognitive correlates in first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Loss of cortical volume in frontotemporal regions has been reported in patients with schizophrenia and their relatives. Cortical area and thickness are determined by different genetic processes, and measuring these parameters separately may clarify disturbances in corticogenesis relevant to schizophrenia. Our study also explored clinical and cognitive correlates of these parameters. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with first-episode psychosis (34 schizophrenia, 3 schizoaffective disorder) and 38 healthy control subjects matched for age and sex took part in the study. Imaging was performed on an magnetic resonance imaging 1.5-T scanner. Area and thickness of the frontotemporal cortex were measured using a surface-based morphometry method (Freesurfer). All subjects underwent neuropsychologic testing that included measures of premorbid and current IQ, working and verbal memory, and executive function. RESULTS: Reductions in cortical area, more marked in the temporal cortex, were present in patients. Overall frontotemporal cortical thickness did not differ between groups, although regional thinning of the right superior temporal region was observed in patients. There was a significant association of both premorbid IQ and IQ at disease onset with area, but not thickness, of the frontotemporal cortex, and working memory span was associated with area of the frontal cortex. These associations remained significant when only patients with schizophrenia were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an early disruption of corticogenesis in schizophrenia, although the effect of subsequent environmental factors cannot be excluded. In addition, cortical abnormalities are subject to regional variations and differ from those present in neurodegenerative diseases.

Assessing cognitive function in clinical trials of schizophrenia.

Cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia is an important target for novel therapies. Effectively measuring the cognitive effects of compounds in clinical trials of schizophrenia could be a major barrier to drug development. The Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) programme produced a consensus cognitive battery which is now widely used, however alternative assessments have advantages and disadvantages when compared with MATRICS. The Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) is a computerised assessment developed from animal behaviour paradigms and human neuropsychology. We review the utility of CANTAB according to MATRICS and CNTRICS recommendations. CANTAB tests have been used in more than 60 studies of psychotic disorders. Their neural bases are well understood through patient and neuroimaging studies and directly equivalent tests in rodents and non-human primates. The tests' sensitivity to pharmacological manipulation is well established. Future studies should collect more data regarding psychometric properties in patients over short time periods, and should continue to study the tests' relationships to functional outcomes. Computerised cognitive assessment may optimise the statistical power of cognitive trials by reducing measurement error and between-site variability and decreasing patient attrition through increased tolerability.