Educating frontline staff in mental health : Evaluating a resource

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluation of a national smoke-free prisons policy using medication dispensing: an interrupted time-series analysis

Background Internationally, smoking prevalence among people in prison custody (ie, people on remand awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing, or serving a custodial sentence) is high. In Scotland, all prisons implemented a comprehensive smoke-free policy in 2018 after a 16-month anticipatory period. In this study, we aimed to use data on medication dispensing to assess the impact of this policy on cessation support, health outcomes, and potential unintended consequences among people in prison custody. Methods We did an interrupted time-series analysis using dispensing data for 44 660 individuals incarcerated in 14 closed prisons in Scotland between March 30, 2014, and Nov 30, 2019. We estimated changes in dispensing rates associated with the policy announcement (July 17, 2017) and full implementation (Nov 30, 2018) using seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models. Medication categories of primary interest were treatments for nicotine dependence (as an indicator of smoking cessation or abstinence attempts), acute smoking-associated illnesses, and mental health (antidepressants). We included antiepileptic medications as a negative control. Findings A 44% step increase in dispensing of treatments for nicotine dependence was observed at implementation (2250 items per 1000 people in custody per fortnight, 95% CI 1875 to 2624) due primarily to a 42% increase in dispensing of nicotine replacement therapy (2109 items per 1000 people in custody per fortnight, 1701 to 2516). A 9% step decrease in dispensing for smoking-related illnesses was observed at implementation, largely accounted for by respiratory medications (−646 items per 1000 people in custody per fortnight, −1111 to −181). No changes associated with announcement or implementation were observed for mental health dispensing or antiepileptic medications (control). Interpretation Smoke-free prison policies might improve respiratory health among people in custody and encourage smoking abstinence or cessation without apparent short-term adverse effects on mental health dispensing

Process and impact of implementing a smoke-free policy in prisons in Scotland: TIPs mixed-methods study

Background: Prisons had partial exemption from the UK’s 2006/7 smoking bans in enclosed public spaces. They became one of the few workplaces with continuing exposure to second-hand smoke, given the high levels of smoking among people in custody. Despite the introduction of smoke-free prisons elsewhere, evaluations of such ‘bans’ have been very limited to date. Objective: The objective was to provide evidence on the process and impact of implementing a smoke-free policy across a national prison service. Design: The Tobacco in Prisons study was a three-phase, multimethod study exploring the periods before policy formulation (phase 1: pre announcement), during preparation for implementation (phase 2: preparatory) and after implementation (phase 3: post implementation). Setting: The study was set in Scotland’s prisons. Participants: Participants were people in custody, prison staff and providers/users of prison smoking cessation services. Intervention: Comprehensive smoke-free prison rules were implemented across all of Scotland’s prisons in November 2018. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were second-hand smoke levels, health outcomes and perspectives/experiences, including facilitators of successful transitions to smoke-free prisons. Data sources: The study utilised cross-sectional surveys of staff (total, n = 3522) and people in custody (total, n = 5956) in each phase; focus groups and/or one-to-one interviews with staff (n = 237 across 34 focus groups; n = 38 interviews), people in custody (n = 62 interviews), providers (n = 103 interviews) and users (n = 45 interviews) of prison smoking cessation services and stakeholders elsewhere (n = 19); measurements of second-hand smoke exposure (e.g. 369,208 minutes of static measures in residential areas at three time points); and routinely collected data (e.g. medications dispensed, inpatient/outpatient visits). Results: Measures of second-hand smoke were substantially (≈ 90%) reduced post implementation, compared with baseline, largely confirming the views of staff and people in custody that illicit smoking is not a major issue post ban. Several factors that contributed to the successful implementation of the smoke-free policy, now accepted as the ‘new normal’, were identified. E-cigarette use has become common, was recognised (by both staff and people in custody) to have facilitated the transition and raises new issues in prisons. The health economic analysis (lifetime model) demonstrated that costs were lower and the number of quality-adjusted life-years was larger for people in custody and staff in the ‘with smoke-free’ policy period than in the ‘without’ policy period, confirming cost-effectiveness against a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Limitations: The ability to triangulate between different data sources mitigated limitations with constituent data sets. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study internationally to analyse the views of prison staff and people in custody; objective measurements of second-hand smoke exposure and routine health and other outcomes before, during and after the implementation of a smoke-free prison policy; and to assess cost-effectiveness. The results are relevant to jurisdictions considering similar legislation, whether or not e-cigarettes are permitted. The study provides a model for partnership working and, as a multidimensional study of a national prison system, adds to a previously sparse evidence base internationally. Future work: Priorities are to understand how to support people in custody in remaining smoke free after release from prison, and whether or not interventions can extend benefits to their families; to evaluate new guidance supporting people wishing to reduce or quit vaping; and to understand how prison vaping practices/cultures may strengthen or weaken long-term reductions in smoking. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry 4802. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

A genome-wide association study identifies risk alleles in plasminogen and P4HA2 associated with giant cell arteritis

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common form of vasculitis in individuals older than 50 years in Western countries. To shed light onto the genetic background influencing susceptibility for GCA, we performed a genome-wide association screening in a well-powered study cohort. After imputation, 1,844,133 genetic variants were analysed in 2,134 cases and 9,125 unaffected controls from ten independent populations of European ancestry. Our data confirmed HLA class II as the strongest associated region (independent signals: rs9268905, P = 1.94E-54, per-allele OR = 1.79; and rs9275592, P = 1.14E-40, OR = 2.08). Additionally, PLG and P4HA2 were identified as GCA risk genes at the genome-wide level of significance (rs4252134, P = 1.23E-10, OR = 1.28; and rs128738, P = 4.60E-09, OR = 1.32, respectively). Interestingly, we observed that the association peaks overlapped with different regulatory elements related to cell types and tissues involved in the pathophysiology of GCA. PLG and P4HA2 are involved in vascular remodelling and angiogenesis, suggesting a high relevance of these processes for the pathogenic mechanisms underlying this type of vasculitis

Shared heritability and functional enrichment across six solid cancers

Correction: Nature Communications 10 (2019): art. 4386 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-12095-8Quantifying the genetic correlation between cancers can provide important insights into the mechanisms driving cancer etiology. Using genome-wide association study summary statistics across six cancer types based on a total of 296,215 cases and 301,319 controls of European ancestry, here we estimate the pair-wise genetic correlations between breast, colorectal, head/neck, lung, ovary and prostate cancer, and between cancers and 38 other diseases. We observed statistically significant genetic correlations between lung and head/neck cancer (r(g) = 0.57, p = 4.6 x 10(-8)), breast and ovarian cancer (r(g) = 0.24, p = 7 x 10(-5)), breast and lung cancer (r(g) = 0.18, p = 1.5 x 10(-6)) and breast and colorectal cancer (r(g) = 0.15, p = 1.1 x 10(-4)). We also found that multiple cancers are genetically correlated with non-cancer traits including smoking, psychiatric diseases and metabolic characteristics. Functional enrichment analysis revealed a significant excess contribution of conserved and regulatory regions to cancer heritability. Our comprehensive analysis of cross-cancer heritability suggests that solid tumors arising across tissues share in part a common germline genetic basis.Peer reviewe

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

Rare coding variants in PLCG2, ABI3, and TREM2 implicate microglial-mediated innate immunity in Alzheimer's disease

We identified rare coding variants associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in a 3-stage case-control study of 85,133 subjects. In stage 1, 34,174 samples were genotyped using a whole-exome microarray. In stage 2, we tested associated variants (P<1×10-4) in 35,962 independent samples using de novo genotyping and imputed genotypes. In stage 3, an additional 14,997 samples were used to test the most significant stage 2 associations (P<5×10-8) using imputed genotypes. We observed 3 novel genome-wide significant (GWS) AD associated non-synonymous variants; a protective variant in PLCG2 (rs72824905/p.P522R, P=5.38×10-10, OR=0.68, MAFcases=0.0059, MAFcontrols=0.0093), a risk variant in ABI3 (rs616338/p.S209F, P=4.56×10-10, OR=1.43, MAFcases=0.011, MAFcontrols=0.008), and a novel GWS variant in TREM2 (rs143332484/p.R62H, P=1.55×10-14, OR=1.67, MAFcases=0.0143, MAFcontrols=0.0089), a known AD susceptibility gene. These protein-coding changes are in genes highly expressed in microglia and highlight an immune-related protein-protein interaction network enriched for previously identified AD risk genes. These genetic findings provide additional evidence that the microglia-mediated innate immune response contributes directly to AD development

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme