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

Autopsy of a failed trial part 1: A qualitative investigation of clinician's views on and experiences of the implementation of the DAISIES trial in UK-based intensive eating disorder services

Objective: The DAISIES trial, comparing inpatient and stepped-care day patient treatment for adults with severe anorexia nervosa was prematurely terminated in March 2022 due to poor recruitment. This qualitative study seeks to understand the difficulties faced during the trial by investigating stakeholders' views on and experiences of its implementation. / Method: Semi-structured interview and focus group transcripts, and trial management and oversight group meeting minutes from May 2020-June 2022 were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants were 47 clinicians and co-investigators involved with the DAISIES trial. The Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework was applied to the interpretive themes to classify barriers and facilitators to implementation. / Results: Five themes were identified: incompatible participation interests; changing standard practice; concerns around clinical management; systemic capacity and capability issues; and Covid-19 disrupting implementation. Applying the NASSS framework indicated the greatest implementation challenges to arise with the adopters (e.g. patients, clinicians), the organisational systems (e.g. service capacity), and the wider socio-political context (e.g. Covid-19 closing services). / Conclusions: Our findings emphasise the top-down impact of systemic-level research implementation challenges. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic accentuated pre-existing organisational barriers to trial implementation within intensive eating disorder services, further limiting the capacity for research

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a ‘stepping into day treatment’ approach versus inpatient treatment as usual for anorexia nervosa in adult specialist eating disorder services (DAISIES trial): a study protocol of a randomised controlled multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious and disabling mental disorder with a high disease burden. In a proportion of cases, intensive hospital-based treatments, i.e. inpatient or day patient treatment, are required, with day patient treatment often being used as a 'step-down' treatment after a period of inpatient treatment. Demand for such treatment approaches has seen a sharp rise. Despite this, the relative merits of these approaches for patients, their families, and the NHS and wider society are relatively unknown. This paper describes the rationale for, and protocol of, a two-arm multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two intensive treatments for adults with severe AN: inpatient treatment as usual and a stepped care day patient approach (the combination of day patient treatment with the option of initial inpatient treatment for medical stabilisation). The main aim of this trial is to establish whether, in adults with severe AN, a stepped care day patient approach is non-inferior to inpatient treatment as usual in relation to improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months post-randomisation. METHODS: 386 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition diagnosis of severe AN or related disorder, with a BMI of ≤16 kg/m2 and in need of intensive treatment will be randomly allocated to either inpatient treatment as usual or a stepped care day patient approach. Patients in both groups will receive treatment until they reach a healthy weight or get as close to this point as possible. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (prior to randomisation), and at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation, with additional monthly symptom monitoring. The primary outcome will be BMI at the 12-month post-randomisation assessment. Other outcomes will include psychosocial adjustment; treatment motivation, expectations and experiences; cost-effectiveness; and carer burden. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide a rigorous evaluation of two intensive treatment approaches which will inform future national and international treatment guidelines and service provision

Exploring gender and fear retrospectively:stories of women’s fear during the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ murders

The murder of 13 women in the North of England between 1975 and 1979 by Peter Sutcliffe who became known as the Yorkshire Ripper can be viewed as a significant criminal event due to the level of fear generated and the impact on local communities more generally. Drawing upon oral history interviews carried out with individuals living in Leeds at the time of the murders, this article explores women’s accounts of their fears from the time. This offers the opportunity to explore the gender/fear nexus from the unique perspective of a clearly defined object of fear situated within a specific spatial and historical setting. Findings revealed a range of anticipated fear-related emotions and practices which confirm popular ‘high-fear’ motifs; however, narrative analysis of interviews also highlighted more nuanced articulations of resistance and fearlessness based upon class, place and biographies of violence, as well as the way in which women drew upon fear/fearlessness in their overall construction of self. It is argued that using narrative approaches is a valuable means of uncovering the complexity of fear of crime and more specifically provides renewed insight onto women’s fear

Costs of fragility hip fractures globally: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Purpose This study was conducted in order to systematically review the costs of hip fractures globally and identify drivers of differences in costs. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify studies reporting patient level fragility hip fracture costs between 1990 and 2015. We extracted data on the participants and costs from these studies. Cost data concerning the index hospitalisation were pooled, and a meta-regression was used to examine its potential drivers. We also pooled data on the first-year costs following hip fracture and considered healthcare, social care as well as other cost categories if reported by studies. Results One hundred and thirteen studies reported costs of hip fracture based on patient level data. Patients developing complications as well as patients enrolled in intervention arms of comparative studies were found to have significantly higher costs compared to the controls. The pooled estimate of the cost for the index hospitalisation was $10,075. Health and social care costs at 12 months were$43,669 with inpatient costs being their major driver. Meta-regression analysis identified age, gender and geographic region as being significantly associated with the differences in costs for the index hospitalisation. Conclusion Hip fracture poses a significant economic burden and variation exists in their costs across different regions. We found that there was a considerable variation across studies in terms of study design, methodology, follow-up period, costs considered and results reported that highlights the need for more standardisation in this area of research