Systematic review of global functioning and quality of life in people with psychotic disorders

Aims People with psychotic disorders face impairments in their global functioning and their quality of life (QoL). The relationship between the two outcomes has not been systematically investigated. Through a systematic review, we aim to explore the presence and extent of associations between global functioning and QoL and establish whether associations depend on the instruments employed.Methods In May 2016, ten electronic databases were searched using a two-phase process to identify articles in which associations between global functioning and QoL were assessed. Basic descriptive data and correlation coefficients between global functioning and QoL instruments were extracted, with the strength of the correlation assessed according to the specifications of Cohen 1988. Results were reported with reference to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines and PRISMA standards. A narrative synthesis was performed due to heterogeneity in methodological approaches.Results Of an initial 15 183 non-duplicate articles identified, 756 were deemed potentially relevant, with 40 studies encompassing 42 articles included. Fourteen instruments for measuring global functioning and 22 instruments for measuring QoL were used. Twenty-nine articles reported linear associations while 19 assessed QoL predictors. Correlations between overall scores varied in strength, primarily dependent on the QoL instrument employed, and whether QoL was objectively or subjectively assessed. Correlations observed for objective QoL measures were consistently larger than those observed for subjective measures, as were correlations for an interviewer than self-assessed QoL. When correlations were assessed by domains of QoL, the highest correlations were found for social domains of QoL, for which most correlations were moderate or higher. Global functioning consistently predicted overall QoL as did depressive and negative symptoms.Conclusions This review is the first to explore the extent of associations between global functioning and QoL in people with psychotic disorders. We consistently found a positive association between global functioning and QoL. The strength of the association was dependent on the QoL instrument employed. QoL domains strongly associated with global functioning were highlighted. The review illustrates the extensive array of instruments used for the assessment of QoL and to a lesser extent global functioning in people with psychotic disorders and provides a framework to understand the different findings reported in the literature. The findings can also inform the future choice of instruments by researchers and/or clinicians. The observed associations reassure that interventions for improving global functioning will have a positive impact on the QoL of people living with a psychotic disorder

Health-related quality of life, functioning and social experiences in people with psychotic disorders

To inform development of a model for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with psychotic disorders, we aimed to assess correlations between utilities and dimension scores for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-4D with functioning and social experiences; ascertain if patient housing and clinical status affected correlations; and determine aspects of functioning that jointly predict HRQoL. We analyzed data for 1642 people with an ICD-10 psychotic disorder from the 2010 Australian National Survey of Psychosis. Global functioning was measured with the Personal and Social Performance scale, independent functioning with the Multidimensional Scale of Independent Functioning and social functioning through level of social dysfunction. Social experiences comprised perceived loneliness and experienced stigma. We assessed Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients and undertook linear regression analyses. Moderate associations were found between AQoL-4D utilities and all variables, except experienced stigma. Perceived loneliness had the strongest association. The AQoL-4D social relationships dimension was most strongly associated with social variables; its independent living dimension with global and independent functioning. Correlations between utilities and all variables, except for social dysfunction, were modified by housing. Course of disorder impacted correlations with utilities and independent functioning. Global functioning and social dysfunction were found to jointly predict HRQoL. In conclusion, as the AQoL-4D can differentiate between functioning and social experiences individually and when categorized by housing and clinical status in people with psychosis, predictive models of HRQoL in this population are feasible, and only need include select aspects of functioning and social experiences, particularly perception of loneliness

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .)

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health