The Prevalence of Multimorbidity among People with Non-Affective Psychotic Disorders 10-Years After First Diagnosis

Prior research suggests that people with psychotic disorders have an excess risk of individual chronic conditions, however less is known about their risk of co-occurring multiple chronic health conditions; that is, multimorbidity. The overall objective of this thesis was to examine the association between psychotic disorders and multimorbidity using two complementary studies. First, our systematic review and meta-analysis of fourteen studies found that people with psychotic disorders had an increased risk of 2+ chronic conditions relative to those without psychosis (RR=1.69, 95%CI=1.37,2.08). Second, our retrospective matched cohort study found that people with psychotic disorders treated by an early psychosis intervention program (n=439) may have a 26% higher prevalence of multimorbidity relative to people without psychosis (n=1,759), although our findings include the possibility of a null effect (PR=1.26, 95%CI=0.96,1.66). We suggest future research using larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods to better understand the association between psychotic disorders and multimorbidity

COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations

Background: Studies related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were frequently published as pre-prints prior to undergoing peer-review. However, several publications were later retracted due to ethical concerns or study misconduct. Although these studies have been retracted, the availability of their corresponding pre-prints has never been formally investigated, and may result in the spread of misinformation if they are being used to inform decision-making. Methods: Our objective was to conduct a systematic survey of retracted COVID-19 publications listed on the Retraction Watch database as of August 15th, 2021. We assessed the availability of corresponding pre-prints for retracted publications, and documented the number of citations and online views. Results: Our study included 140 retracted COVID-19 publications, and we could not retrieve corresponding pre-prints for 132 retracted publications in our study (94%). Although we were unable to find the majority of pre-prints, they had already been disseminated, with a maximal citation count of 593 and Altmetric score of 558,928. Conclusion: While it is reassuring that most corresponding pre-prints could not be retrieved, our study highlights the need for online platforms and journals to employ quality assurance methods to prevent the spread of misinformation through citation of retracted papers

The prevalence of physical multimorbidity among people with non-affective psychotic disorders 10 years after first diagnosis: a matched retrospective cohort study

Aims: The higher prevalence of chronic physical health conditions among people with psychotic disorders may result in a reduced life expectancy as compared to the general population. More research is needed on the risk of multiple co-occurring chronic health conditions, known as multimorbidity, for people with psychotic disorders. Methods: We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study to quantify the prevalence of multimorbidity and associated factors among people with psychotic disorders over the 10-year period following first diagnosis, relative to those without psychosis. Data from an early psychosis intervention program in London, Canada were linked to population-based health administrative data to identify patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 439), and a comparison group from the general population (n = 1759) matched on age, sex, and postal code. We followed the cohort for 10 years to ascertain the prevalence of multimorbidity. We compared people with and without psychosis using modified Poisson regression models, and explored risk factors for multimorbidity among those with psychotic disorders. Results: People with psychotic disorders may have a 26% higher prevalence of multimorbidity 10 years following first diagnosis, although our findings include the possibility of a null effect (PR = 1.26, 95% CI 0.96–1.66). People with psychosis living in areas with the highest levels of material deprivation had a threefold higher prevalence of multimorbidity as compared to those in the lowest areas of material deprivation (PR = 3.09, 95% CI 1.21–7.90). Conclusion: Multimorbidity is prevalent among those with psychosis, and assessment for chronic health conditions should be integrated into clinical care for younger populations with psychotic illness

The risk of physical multimorbidity in people with psychotic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The occurrence of multiple co-occurring chronic health conditions, known as multimorbidity, is associated with decreases in quality of life for patients and poses unique challenges for healthcare systems. Since people with psychotic disorders have an excess of physical health conditions compared to the general population, they may also be at a higher risk for multimorbidity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the prevalence and excess risk of multimorbidity among people with psychotic disorders, relative to those without psychosis. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases, and conducted forward and backward citation tracing of included studies. Studies published after 1990 were included if they reported the prevalence of multiple chronic physical health conditions among people with psychotic disorders. Data on the prevalence and relative risk of multimorbidity were meta-analyzed using random effects models. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and eight were included in the meta-analysis. Each study used a different operational definition of multimorbidity, both for the number and types of chronic conditions, which resulted in a wide range in prevalence estimates (16% to 91%). People with psychotic disorders had an increased risk of multimorbidity (RR = 1.69, 95%CI = 1.37,2.08), relative to those without psychosis. Conclusions: People with psychotic disorders are more likely to experience multimorbidity than those without psychotic disorders. Clinicians treating people with psychosis should closely monitor for a range of physical health conditions. Future research examining multimorbidity among people with psychiatric illness should employ consistent definitions to better enable cross-study comparisons

Performance of waist-to-height ratio as a screening tool for identifying cardiometabolic risk in children: a meta-analysis

Abstract Objective To provide the latest evidence of performance and robustness of waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) in discriminating clusters of cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRs) and promote WHtR in routine primary health care practice in children, a meta-analysis was used. Methods Searches was performed in eight databases from inception to July 03, 2020. Inclusion criteria were: (1) observational study, (2) children and adolescents, (3) provided WHtR measurements, (4) had CMRs as outcomes, and (5) diagnostic studies. Exclusion criteria were: (1) non-original articles, (2) unable to extract 2 × 2 contingency tables, (3) not in English or Chinese language, (4) populations comprising clinical patients, or (5) duplicate articles. WHtR cutoff points, 2 × 2 contingency tables were extracted from published reports. Outcomes included: CMR clusters of at least three CMRs (CMR3), two (CMR2), one (CMR1), and CMR components. Bivariate mixed-effects models were performed to estimate the summarised area under the curves (AUSROC) with 95% CIs and related indexes. We conducted subgroup analyses by sex and East Asian ethnicity. Results Fifty-three observational studies were included. The AUSROC reached 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.93), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.88) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.79) for CMR3, CMR2, and CMR1, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for CMR3 reached 0.84 and exceeded 0.75 for CMR2. For CMR1, the sensitivity achieved 0.55 with 0.84 for specificity. We had similar findings for our subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions WHtR shows good and robust performance in identifying CMRs clustering across racial populations, suggesting its promising utility in public health practice globally

The inclusion of patients' reported outcomes to inform treatment effectiveness measures in opioid use disorder. a systematic review.

Introduction: Patient centred care is needed now more than ever in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Trials, policy makers, and service providers have most often used treatment retention and opioid urine screens as measures of treatment effectiveness. However, patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder treatment (MOUD) may prioritise the use of different ways to assess treatment success. Objective: The aim of this review is to synthesize literature examining the self-reported goals patients would like to achieve in MOUD for opioid use disorder. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception until April 30th, 2021. No restrictions were placed on language, age, or type of MOUD. A qualitative synthesis is presented given that a meta-analysis was not possible. Results: The search yielded a total of 21,082 records from which 8 met criteria for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. We identified a total of 43 patient-reported treatment goals from the 8 studies. Twelve domains were created from the 43 goals reported. These domains cover a range of important areas for patients' goals related to living a normal life, physical health, mental health, treatment, and substance use specific areas. Conclusion: This review highlights several patient goals that they would like to achieve during treatment for opioid use disorder that are not commonly considered as markers of treatment effectiveness. Goals related to health, living a normal life, and overall substance use concerns by patients should be taken into consideration by clinical trialists, researchers, policy makers, service providers, patients, and communities engaged in developing and tailoring treatment plans for opioid use disorder

Assessing fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacological therapies for opioid use disorders: a systematic review

Abstract Background The fragility index is a statistical measure of the robustness or “stability” of a statistically significant result. It has been adapted to assess the robustness of statistically significant outcomes from randomized controlled trials. By hypothetically switching some non-responders to responders, for instance, this metric measures how many individuals would need to have responded for a statistically significant finding to become non-statistically significant. The purpose of this study is to assess the fragility index of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioid substitution and antagonist therapies for opioid use disorder. This will provide an indication as to the robustness of trials in the field and the confidence that should be placed in the trials’ outcomes, potentially identifying ways to improve clinical research in the field. This is especially important as opioid use disorder has become a global epidemic, and the incidence of opioid related fatalities have climbed 500% in the past two decades. Methods Six databases were searched from inception to September 25, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating opioid substitution and antagonist therapies for opioid use disorder, and meeting the necessary requirements for fragility index calculation. Specifically, we included all parallel arm or two-by-two factorial design RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of any opioid substitution and antagonist therapies using a binary primary outcome and reported a statistically significant result. The fragility index of each study was calculated using methods described by Walsh and colleagues. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials. Results Ten studies with a median sample size of 82.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 58, 179, range 52–226) were eligible for inclusion. Overall risk of bias was deemed to be low in seven studies, have some concerns in two studies, and be high in one study. The median fragility index was 7.5 (IQR 4, 12, range 1–26). Conclusions Our results suggest that approximately eight participants are needed to overturn the conclusions of the majority of trials in opioid use disorder. Future work should focus on maximizing transparency in reporting of study results, by reporting confidence intervals, fragility indexes, and emphasizing the clinical relevance of findings. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42013006507. Registered on November 25, 2013

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression

Background Findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are synthesised through meta-analyses, which inform evidence-based decision-making. When key details regarding trial outcomes are not fully reported, knowledge synthesis and uptake of findings into clinical practice are impeded. Aims Our study assessed reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs for older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). Method Trials published between 2011 and 2021, which assessed any intervention for adults aged ≥65 years with a MDD diagnosis, and that specified a single primary outcome were considered for inclusion in our study. Outcome reporting assessment was conducted independently and in duplicate with a 58-item checklist, used in developing the CONSORT-Outcomes statement, and information in each RCT was scored as ‘fully reported’, ‘partially reported’ or ‘not reported’, as applicable. Results Thirty-one of 49 RCTs reported one primary outcome and were included in our study. Most trials (71%) did not fully report over half of the 58 checklist items. Items pertaining to outcome analyses and interpretation were fully reported by 65% or more of trials. Items reported less frequently included: outcome measurement instrument properties (varied from 3 to 30%) and justification of the criteria used to define clinically meaningful change (23%). Conclusions There is variability in how geriatric depression RCTs report primary outcomes, with omission of details regarding measurement, selection, justification and definition of clinically meaningful change. Outcome reporting deficiencies may hinder replicability and synthesis efforts that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making. The CONSORT-Outcomes guideline should be used when reporting geriatric depression RCTs