Goodmayes Hospital

Formal guidelines recommend that opioids should be stopped when risks outweigh benefits. These guidelines generally recommend gradual dose tapering at a rate tolerable to the patient. However, there is considerable variation regarding the pattern of dose tapering recommended, with some suggesting linear tapers (with a fixed reduction of dose at each step), while others recommend increasingly small dose reductions as the total dose gets lower. No biological rationale has been put forward for these recommendations. We examined the pharmacodynamic properties of opioids to derive pharmacologically rational principles for tapering. As dictated by the law of mass action, the relationship between dose of opioid and effect on its principal target, the mu-opioid receptor, is hyperbolic, with diminishing incremental effects for increasing doses. This suggests that in order to mitigate withdrawal symptoms, opioid doses should be tapered according to a corresponding hyperbolic pattern, with dose reductions becoming increasingly small as total dose reduces. This can be approximated by proportional decreases (e.g. 1%–10% reduction of the most recent dose every 1–2 weeks). Dose reductions should be titrated to withdrawal symptoms throughout the process, and final doses before complete cessation will need to be very small (such as 0.1 mg of buprenorphine or 1 mg of methadone, or less). The duration required for this strategy of tolerable tapering after long-term use may require many months or years for some patients. The theoretical proposals in this paper offer a pharmacologically rational strategy that should prompt review of clinical practice and guidelines. Gradual, hyperbolic tapering should be evaluated in randomised controlled trials.

Stigma of mental health conditions hinders recovery and well-being. The Honest, Open, Proud (HOP) program shows promise in reducing stigma but there is uncertainty about the feasibility of a randomized trial to evaluate a peer-delivered, individual adaptation of HOP for psychosis (Let's Talk). A multi-site, Prospective Randomized Open Blinded Evaluation (PROBE) design, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the peer-delivered intervention (Let's Talk) to treatment as usual (TAU). Follow-up was 2.5 and 6 months. Randomization was via a web-based system, with permuted blocks of random size. Up to 10 sessions of the intervention over 10 weeks were offered. The primary outcome was feasibility data (recruitment, retention, intervention attendance). Primary outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported by as treated status. The study was prospectively registered: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17197043. 149 patients were referred to the study and 70 were recruited. 35 were randomly assigned to intervention + TAU and 35 to TAU. Recruitment was 93% of the target sample size. Retention rate was high (81% at 2.5 months primary endpoint), and intervention attendance rate was high (83%). 21% of 33 patients in Let's talk + TAU had an adverse event and 16% of 37 patients in TAU. One serious adverse event (pre-randomization) was partially related and expected. This is the first trial to show that it is feasible and safe to conduct a RCT of HOP adapted for people with psychosis and individual delivery. An adequately powered trial is required to provide robust evidence.

This study aimed to investigate mother-infant interaction and infant development in women at-risk of postpartum psychosis (PP), with and without a postpartum relapse. 103 women (and their offspring) were included, 43 at-risk-of-PP because of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder or previous PP, and 60 with no current/previous mental illness or family history of PP. Of the at-risk women, 18 developed a psychiatric relapse within 4 weeks after delivery (AR-unwell), while 25 remained symptom-free (AR-well). Mother-infant interaction was assessed using the CARE-Index at 8 weeks' and 12 months' postpartum and infant development using the Bayley-III at 12 months' postpartum. Women at-risk-of-PP as a group, regardless of whether they developed a psychiatric relapse within 4 weeks after delivery, had less synchronous mother-infant interactions and had infants with less optimal cognitive, language, motor and socio-emotional development than healthy controls. In particular, boys of at-risk women had the lowest scores in cognitive, language and motor development and in mother-infant interaction, while girls of the at-risk women had the lowest scores in socio-emotional development. The synchrony in the dyad predicted infant cognitive and language development. There was no evidence for a difference in mother-infant interaction nor in infant development between the AR-unwell and AR-well groups. These results suggest that, while there is a lack of evidence that an early postpartum relapse in women at-risk-of-PP could represent a risk for the infant per se, maternal risk for PP may be associated with less optimal mother-infant interaction and infant development.

BackgroundCognitive Behavioural Therapy for psychosis (CBTp) has an established evidence base and is recommended by clinical guidelines to be offered during the acute phases of psychosis. However, few research studies have examined the efficacy of CBTp interventions specifically adapted for the acute mental health inpatient context with most research trials being conducted with white European community populations.AimsThe aim of this study is to conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), which incorporates the examination of feasibility markers, of a crisis-focused CBTp intervention adapted for an ethnically diverse acute mental health inpatient population, in preparation for a large-scale randomised controlled trial. The study will examine the feasibility of undertaking the trial, the acceptability and safety of the intervention and the suitability of chosen outcome measures. This will inform the planning of a future, fully powered RCT.MethodsA single-site, parallel-group, pilot RCT will be conducted examining the intervention. Drawing on principles of coproduction, the intervention has been adapted in partnership with key stakeholders: service users with lived experience of psychosis and of inpatient care (including those from ethnic minority backgrounds), carers, multi-disciplinary inpatient clinicians and researchers. Sixty participants with experience of psychosis and in current receipt of acute mental health inpatient care will be recruited. Participants will be randomly allocated to either the crisis-focused CBTp intervention or treatment as usual (TAU).DiscussionFindings of this pilot RCT will indicate whether a larger multi-site RCT is needed to investigate the efficacy of the intervention. If the initial results demonstrate that this trial is feasible and the intervention is acceptable, it will provide evidence that a full-scale effectiveness trial may be warranted.Trial registrationThis trial has been prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN59055607) on the 18th of February 2021.

Background‘Open Dialogue’ is a social network model of crisis and continuing mental healthcare which involves elements of service delivery such as immediate response and a style of therapeutic meeting called network meetings. Although there are indications from non-randomised studies that it may help people in their recovery from severe mental health crises and improve long-term outcomes, this has yet to be tested in a randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis paper outlines the protocol for a multi-site cluster-randomised control trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Open Dialogue compared to treatment as usual (TAU) for individuals presenting in crisis to six mental health services in England. The primary outcome is time to relapse, with secondary outcomes including measures of recovery and service use. Participants will be followed-up for two years, with data collected from electronic medical records and researcher-led interviews. The analysis will compare outcomes between treatment groups as well as investigating potential mediators of effect: shared decision-making and social network quality and size. Carers of a subsample of participants will be asked about their experiences of shared decision-making, carer burden, and satisfaction.DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence of whether Open Dialogue services implemented in the English mental health system is an effective alternative to current care and may have important implications for the organization of community mental health services.Trial registration: retrospectively registered (108 participants recruited of 570 target) on 20/12/2019, ISRCTN52653325.

BackgroundPeople with intellectual disability (ID) are more likely to experience chronic depression compared with the general population, which may be compounded by loneliness and lower levels of social support. Befriending aims to provide social support and promote engagement in community activities. No randomised controlled trials have examined whether befriending improves symptoms of depression and social outcomes in people with ID. The aim of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a future larger trial of one‐to‐one befriending by volunteers in people with ID and depressive symptoms.MethodsParticipants were adults with mild or moderate ID with a score of 5 or more on the Glasgow Depression Scale for People with Learning Disabilities (GDS‐LD). They were randomised to the intervention arm (matched to a volunteer befriender for 6 months) or the control arm (usual care). Volunteers received training and supervision provided by two community befriending schemes. The main outcomes were feasibility of recruitment (minimum target n = 35), retention rate of participants, adherence (minimum 10 meetings), acceptability of the intervention, changes in depressive symptoms (assessed at baseline and 6 months) and feasibility of collecting data for a health economic analysis.ResultsRecruitment was challenging, and only 16 participants with ID and 10 volunteers were recruited. Six participants were matched with a volunteer and no participants dropped out (except for two volunteers). Four participants completed 10 meetings (mean 11.8). Befriending was thought to be acceptable, but modifications were suggested. An exploratory analysis suggested that GDS‐LD score was lower in the intervention group compared with the control group after adjusting for baseline scores, but not significant (adjusted mean difference: −4.0; 95% confidence interval: −11.2 to 3.2).ConclusionsA large trial would not be feasible based on the recruitment strategies employed in this study. A further feasibility study addressing these challenges or the use of other study designs should be considered.

Abstract. Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a manualized psychosocial group intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia. Because of its broad scientific evidence and cost effectiveness, CST is now used globally. To ensure replicability and quality standards of the intervention in other cultures, Aguirre et al. (2014) developed guidelines for cultural adaptation of CST based on the formative method for adapting psychotherapy (FMAP). Following this community-based approach, we adapted and translated the English CST manual into German, including multiprofessional focus groups, two adaptation cycles, and two pilot CST groups ( n = 13) in different settings representative of the German healthcare system. Effectiveness in both groups was assessed by pre-post comparison of standard scales on cognition, depression, quality of life, and self-efficacy. We were able to replicate previous findings of improved cognition as measured by the ADAS-Cog, with effect sizes in the same range as in previous randomized controlled trials. Additionally, self-efficacy increased in post-test compared to the pre-test, indicating that CST might trigger cognition through positive, self-rewarding activation.

Esketamine has been licensed for 'treatment-resistant depression' in the USA, UK and Europe. Licensing trials did not establish efficacy: two trials were negative, one showed a statistically significant but clinically uncertain effect, and a flawed discontinuation trial was included, against Food and Drug Administration precedent. Safety signals - deaths, including suicides, and bladder damage - were minimised.

BackgroundMemory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia.This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone.Methods/designPRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at 3 and 6 month’s post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at 3 to 6 months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined.DiscussionThis study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so, will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019.

BackgroundPrevious research has indicated that wide international variation in the prevalence of disabling low back pain among working populations is largely driven by factors predisposing to musculoskeletal pain more generally. This paper explores whether the same applies to disabling wrist/hand pain (WHP).MethodsUsing data from the Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability (CUPID) study, we focused on workers from 45 occupational groups (office workers, nurses and other workers) in 18 countries. Among 11,740 participants who completed a baseline questionnaire about musculoskeletal pain and potential risk factors, 9082 (77%) answered a further questionnaire after a mean interval of 14 months, including 1373 (15%) who reported disabling WHP in the month before follow-up. Poisson regression was used to assess associations of this outcome with baseline risk factors, including the number of anatomical sites other than wrist/hand that had been painful in the 12 months before baseline (taken as an index of general propensity to pain).ResultsAfter allowance for other risk factors, the strongest associations were with general pain propensity (prevalence rate ratio for an index ≥6 vs. 0: 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.9–4.4), and risk rose progressively as the index increased. The population attributable fraction for a pain propensity index > 0 was 49.4%. The prevalence of disabling WHP by occupational group ranged from 0.3 to 36.2%, and correlated strongly with mean pain propensity index (correlation coefficient 0.86).ConclusionStrategies to prevent disability from WHP among working populations should explore ways of reducing general propensity to pain, as well as improving the ergonomics of occupational tasks.