Automated virtual reality cognitive therapy versus virtual reality mental relaxation therapy for the treatment of persistent persecutory delusions in patients with psychosis (THRIVE): a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in England with mediation analyses

Background: Persecutory delusions are a major psychiatric problem that often do not respond sufficiently to standard pharmacological or psychological treatments. We developed a new brief automated virtual reality (VR) cognitive treatment that has the potential to be used easily in clinical services. We aimed to compare VR cognitive therapy with an alternative VR therapy (mental relaxation), with an emphasis on understanding potential mechanisms of action. Methods: THRIVE was a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial across four UK National Health Service trusts in England. Participants were included if they were aged 16 years or older, had a persistent (at least 3 months) persecutory delusion held with at least 50% conviction, reported feeling threatened when outside with other people, and had a primary diagnosis from the referring clinical team of a non-affective psychotic disorder. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to either THRIVE VR cognitive therapy or VR mental relaxation, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by severity of delusion. Usual care continued for all participants. Each VR therapy was provided in four sessions over approximately 4 weeks, supported by an assistant psychologist or clinical psychologist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 2 (therapy mid-point), 4 (primary endpoint, end of treatment), 8, 16, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0–100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed the treatment credibility and expectancy of the interventions and the two mechanisms (defence behaviours and safety beliefs) that the cognitive intervention was designed to target. This trial is prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12497310. Findings: From Sept 21, 2018, to May 13, 2021 (with a pause due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from March 16, 2020, to Sept 14, 2020), we recruited 80 participants with persistent persecutory delusions (49 [61%] men, 31 [39%] women, with a mean age of 40 years [SD 13, range 18–73], 64 [80%] White, six [8%] Black, one [1%] Indian, three [4%] Pakistani, and six [8%] other race or ethnicity). We randomly assigned 39 (49%) participants assigned to VR cognitive therapy and 41 (51%) participants to VR mental relaxation. 33 (85%) participants who were assigned to VR cognitive therapy attended all four sessions, and 35 (85%) participants assigned to VR mental relaxation attended all four sessions. We found no significant differences between the two VR interventions in participant ratings of treatment credibility (adjusted mean difference –1·55 [95% CI –3·68 to 0·58]; p=0·15) and outcome expectancy (–0·91 [–3·42 to 1·61]; p=0·47). 77 (96%) participants provided follow-up data at the primary timepoint. Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater improvement in persecutory delusions (adjusted mean difference –2·16 [–12·77 to 8·44]; p=0·69). Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater reduction in use of defence behaviours (adjusted mean difference –0·71 [–4·21 to 2·79]; p=0·69) or a greater increase in belief in safety (–5·89 [–16·83 to 5·05]; p=0·29). There were 17 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial (ten events in seven participants in the VR cognitive therapy group and seven events in five participants in the VR mental relaxation group). Interpretation: The two VR interventions performed similarly, despite the fact that they had been designed to affect different mechanisms. Both interventions had high uptake rates and were associated with large improvements in persecutory delusions but it cannot be determined that the treatments accounted for the change. Immersive technologies hold promise for the treatment of severe mental health problems. However, their use will likely benefit from experimental research on the application of different therapeutic techniques and the effects on a range of potential mechanisms of action.The trial was funded by the Medical Research Council Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme (MR/P02629X/1). It was also supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-2000). DF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. DMC is an Emeritus NIHR Senior Investigator. This paper presents independent research funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. FW is funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Doctoral Fellowship (102176/B/13/Z). MS is supported by the European Research Council Grant MoTIVE (742989).Peer ReviewedArticle signat per 23 autors/es: Department of Experimental Psychology (Prof D Freeman DClinPsy, R Lister DClinPsy, F Waite DClinPsych, S Lambe DClinPsy, A Beckley MA, E Bold BSc, L Jenner BA, R Diamond DClinPsych, M Kirkham DClinPsych, E Twivy DClinPsych, C Causier MSc, L Carr BSc, S Saidel MSc, A Rovira PhD, Prof D M Clark DPhil, L Rosebrock PhD), Oxford Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (U Galal MSc, L-M Yu PhD), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK (Prof D Freeman, F Waite, S Lambe, R Diamond, A Rovira, Prof D M Clark, L Rosebrock); Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK (R Lister); Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering, UK (R Day BSc, A Ivins DClinPsych, R Nah DClinPsy); Event Lab, Faculty of Psychology Spain (A Beacco PhD, Prof M Slater DSc), Institute of Neurosciences (Prof M Slater), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain (A Beacco); Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (R Nah)Postprint (published version

Automated virtual reality cognitive therapy versus virtual reality mental relaxation therapy for the treatment of persistent persecutory delusions in patients with psychosis (THRIVE): a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in England with mediation analyses

Background: Persecutory delusions are a major psychiatric problem that often do not respond sufficiently to standard pharmacological or psychological treatments. We developed a new brief automated virtual reality (VR) cognitive treatment that has the potential to be used easily in clinical services. We aimed to compare VR cognitive therapy with an alternative VR therapy (mental relaxation), with an emphasis on understanding potential mechanisms of action. Methods: THRIVE was a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial across four UK National Health Service trusts in England. Participants were included if they were aged 16 years or older, had a persistent (at least 3 months) persecutory delusion held with at least 50% conviction, reported feeling threatened when outside with other people, and had a primary diagnosis from the referring clinical team of a non-affective psychotic disorder. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to either THRIVE VR cognitive therapy or VR mental relaxation, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by severity of delusion. Usual care continued for all participants. Each VR therapy was provided in four sessions over approximately 4 weeks, supported by an assistant psychologist or clinical psychologist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 2 (therapy mid-point), 4 (primary endpoint, end of treatment), 8, 16, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0–100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed the treatment credibility and expectancy of the interventions and the two mechanisms (defence behaviours and safety beliefs) that the cognitive intervention was designed to target. This trial is prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12497310. Findings: From Sept 21, 2018, to May 13, 2021 (with a pause due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from March 16, 2020, to Sept 14, 2020), we recruited 80 participants with persistent persecutory delusions (49 [61%] men, 31 [39%] women, with a mean age of 40 years [SD 13, range 18–73], 64 [80%] White, six [8%] Black, one [1%] Indian, three [4%] Pakistani, and six [8%] other race or ethnicity). We randomly assigned 39 (49%) participants assigned to VR cognitive therapy and 41 (51%) participants to VR mental relaxation. 33 (85%) participants who were assigned to VR cognitive therapy attended all four sessions, and 35 (85%) participants assigned to VR mental relaxation attended all four sessions. We found no significant differences between the two VR interventions in participant ratings of treatment credibility (adjusted mean difference –1·55 [95% CI –3·68 to 0·58]; p=0·15) and outcome expectancy (–0·91 [–3·42 to 1·61]; p=0·47). 77 (96%) participants provided follow-up data at the primary timepoint. Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater improvement in persecutory delusions (adjusted mean difference –2·16 [–12·77 to 8·44]; p=0·69). Compared with VR mental relaxation, VR cognitive therapy did not lead to a greater reduction in use of defence behaviours (adjusted mean difference –0·71 [–4·21 to 2·79]; p=0·69) or a greater increase in belief in safety (–5·89 [–16·83 to 5·05]; p=0·29). There were 17 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial (ten events in seven participants in the VR cognitive therapy group and seven events in five participants in the VR mental relaxation group). Interpretation: The two VR interventions performed similarly, despite the fact that they had been designed to affect different mechanisms. Both interventions had high uptake rates and were associated with large improvements in persecutory delusions but it cannot be determined that the treatments accounted for the change. Immersive technologies hold promise for the treatment of severe mental health problems. However, their use will likely benefit from experimental research on the application of different therapeutic techniques and the effects on a range of potential mechanisms of action. Funding: Medical Research Council Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme and National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre

Oligomers of the ATPase EHD2 confine caveolae to the plasma membrane through association with actin

Caveolae are plasma membrane microdomains that play important roles in signalling and endocytosis. The ATPase EHD2 shuttles on and off the static population of caveolae in an ATPase cycledependent manner and links caveolae to actin filaments confining them to the plasma membrane

Caveolin-1 is ubiquitinated and targeted to intralumenal vesicles in endolysosomes for degradation

Identification of the pathway by which caveolin-1 is degraded when caveolae assembly is compromised suggests that “caveosomes” may be endosomal accumulations of the protein awaiting degradation

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

Decreased Reward Sensitivity in Rats from the Fischer344 Strain Compared to Wistar Rats Is Paralleled by Differences in Endocannabinoid Signaling

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to examine if differences in the endocannabinoid (ECB) system might be linked to strain specific variations in reward-related behavior in Fischer344 (Fischer) and Wistar rats. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two rat strains, the Fischer and the Wistar strain, were tested for different aspects of reward sensitivity for a palatable food reward (sweetened condensed milk, SCM) in a limited-access intake test, a progressive ratio (PR) schedule and the pleasure-attenuated startle (PAS) paradigm. Additionally, basic differences in the ECB system and cannabinoid pharmacology were examined in both rat strains. Fischer rats were found to express lower reward sensitivity towards SCM compared to Wistar rats. These differences were observed for consummatory, motivational and hedonic aspects of the palatable food reward. Western blot analysis for the CB1 receptor and the ECB degrading enzyme fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) revealed a lower expression of both proteins in the hippocampus (HPC) of Fischer rats compared to the Wistar strain. Furthermore, increased cannabinoid-stimulated extracellular-regulated kinase (ERK) phosphorylation was detected in Wistar rats compared to the Fischer strain, indicating alterations in ECB signaling. These findings were further supported by the pharmacological results, where Fischer rats were found to be less sensitive towards the effects of the CB1 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist SR141716 and the cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our present findings indicate differences in the expression of the CB1 receptor and FAAH, as well as the activation of ECB signaling pathways between Fischer and Wistar rats. These basic differences in the ECB system might contribute to the pronounced differences observed in reward sensitivity between both rat strains

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

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Miriam Kirkham - A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Clinical Psychology (DClinPsych): Main Project: Advancing the clinical understanding and measurement of negative self-beliefs in young people with paranoia. Service Improvement Project: “We don’t sleep here”: Experiences of sleep problems, factors disrupting sleep, and intervention preferences in an adolescent inpatient service. Systematic Review of the Literature: Paranoia and appraisals of social comparison: A systematic review of social rank, attractiveness, and belonging.

Title: Advancing the clinical understanding and measurement of negative self-beliefs in young people with paranoia Background: Negative self-beliefs are implicated in the causation of paranoia. When we perceive ourselves as inferior, outcast, and hence vulnerable, paranoid ideas flourish. This relationship is pertinent in adolescence, a developmental period of identity formation and expanding social connections. However, little is known about the types of self-cognitions that drive adolescent paranoia. Aims: We sought to investigate themes of self-beliefs relevant to the experience of paranoia in youth, and develop a precise measurement tool. Method: This was a mixed methods study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 young people experiencing paranoia (age range=14-23, M=19, SD=3.22). Data was analysed using thematic analysis to generate two item pools (self-beliefs, evidence for beliefs). The item pools and measures of self-esteem, paranoia, depression, hallucinations, and grandiosity were completed online by 937 young people (age range=14-25, M=17.87, SD=2.75) from the general population. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to derive the Sense of Self – Youth Scale (SoS) (n=1200) and a complementary scale on evidence underlying beliefs (SoS-E) (n=1104). Psychometric properties were tested. Results: The 20-item SoS includes four subscales: not good enough, bad, broken, and an outcast. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated excellent model fit. The SoS demonstrated high internal consistency (=.941), test-re-test reliability (ICC=.959), convergent and divergent validity. The SoS was significantly associated with paranoia (r=.634, p Conclusions: The SoS and SoS-E are brief, psychometrically robust, self-report measures which may prove helpful for understanding and treating negative self-beliefs relevant to the experience of paranoia in youth