Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study

Background Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. Methods We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14–18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Findings Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial. Interpretation This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence

A three-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing antipsychotic medication to psychological intervention to a combined treatment in adolescents with first episode psychosis: The Managing Adolescent first episode Psychosis Study (MAPS)

Background: The evidence base for treatments for early-onset psychosis (EOP) is limited and of low quality. Current guidance for the treatment of EOP is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. NICE, in the United Kingdom (UK), make a specific research recommendation for the evaluation of clinical and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotics (AP), versus psychological intervention (cognitive behaviour therapy [CBT] and family intervention), versus combination treatment for EOP. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the UK commissioned this research to establish feasibility and acceptability of a definitive trial examining these three treatment options. Methods: We conducted a multi-site, Prospective Randomised Open Blinded Evaluation (PROBE) design, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing AP monotherapy with psychological intervention monotherapy (PI) plus a combination of these treatments in 14-18-year olds with a first episode of psychosis. We recruited participants from seven United Kingdom sites. Participants were followed-up at six and 12 months. Cognitive behavioural therapy incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions. Family intervention included up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. The primary outcome was feasibility data (recruitment, retention, acceptability) and the main effectiveness outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 6 months. We conducted a repeated-measures analysis of the proposed primary outcome (PANSS) and the secondary outcome, the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) using a mixed effects model to account for the discrete timing of the follow-up assessments and adjusted for site. Safety outcomes were reported on the basis of as treated status defined as any one session of CBT or any one dose of APs; descriptive statistics are reported for safety outcomes. The study was prospectively registered on 27th February 2017, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80567433. Findings: 61 patients (aged 14-18 years; mean 16.3, SD 1.3) were recruited from 1st April 2017 to 31st October 2018, 18 were assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics and 21 to the combination. The feasibility of recruitment was unclear, since the trial only recruited 61 of a target of 90 participants. The study had a low referral: randomisation ratio (101:61), high rates of retention (>80%), high rates of adherence for psychological intervention (82.1%) defined as 6 or more sessions of CBT, and moderate rates of adherence for antipsychotic medication (65.1%), defined as 6 or more consecutive weeks of APs. The median number of sessions for CBT for those in the PI arm was 14 (IQR 9, 23) and 15 in the combined arm (IQR 9, 17). Of those in receipt of APs the mean duration that the participant remained on the medication was 31.5 weeks (SD 14.6, minimum 8.7 and maximum 52). There were no serious adverse events considered to be related to the trial. Interpretation: This is the first trial to show that it is safe to conduct a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotics and the combination in people in young people with a first-episode psychosis. However, feasibility is unclear due to not meeting the recruitment progression criteria, so amendments to trial design are required in order to conduct an adequately powered clinical and cost effectiveness trial to provide robust evidence

The genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes

The genetic architecture of common traits, including the number, frequency, and effect sizes of inherited variants that contribute to individual risk, has been long debated. Genome-wide association studies have identified scores of common variants associated with type 2 diabetes, but in aggregate, these explain only a fraction of heritability. To test the hypothesis that lower-frequency variants explain much of the remainder, the GoT2D and T2D-GENES consortia performed whole genome sequencing in 2,657 Europeans with and without diabetes, and exome sequencing in a total of 12,940 subjects from five ancestral groups. To increase statistical power, we expanded sample size via genotyping and imputation in a further 111,548 subjects. Variants associated with type 2 diabetes after sequencing were overwhelmingly common and most fell within regions previously identified by genome-wide association studies. Comprehensive enumeration of sequence variation is necessary to identify functional alleles that provide important clues to disease pathophysiology, but large-scale sequencing does not support a major role for lower-frequency variants in predisposition to type 2 diabetes

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men