SAFETEL randomised controlled feasibility trial of a safety planning intervention with follow-up telephone contact to reduce suicidal behaviour: study protocol

Introduction: There are no evidence-based interventions that can be administered in hospital settings following a general hospital admission after a suicide attempt. Aim: To determine whether a safety planning intervention (SPI) with follow-up telephone support (SAFETEL) is feasible and acceptable to patients admitted to UK hospitals following a suicide attempt. Methods and Analysis: Three-phase development and feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. Phase I comprises tailoring an SPI with telephone follow-up originally designed for veterans in the USA, for use in the UK. Phase II involves piloting the intervention with patients (n=30) who have been hospitalised following a suicide attempt. Phase III is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of 120 patients who have been hospitalised following a suicide attempt with a 6-month follow-up. Phase III participants will be recruited from across four National Health Service hospitals in Scotland and randomised to receive either the SPI with telephone follow-up and treatment as usual (n=80) or treatment as usual only (n=40). The primary outcomes are feasibility outcomes and include the acceptability of the intervention to participants and intervention staff, the feasibility of delivery in this setting, recruitment, retention and intervention adherence as well as the feasibility of collecting the self-harm readmission to hospital outcome data. Statistical analyses will include description of recruitment rates, intervention adherence/use, response rates and estimates of the primary outcome event rates, and intervention effect size (Phase III). Thematic analyses will be conducted on interview and focus group data. Ethics and Dissemination: The East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (EoSRES) approved this study in March 2017 (GN17MH101 Ref: 17/ES/0036). The study results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. A participant summary paper will also be disseminated to patients, service providers and policy makers alongside the main publication. Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN62181241

Cognitive behavioural therapy for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: the FOCUS RCT

Background: Clozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people with schizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome. Design: The Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks of random size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU). Setting: Secondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK. Participants: People with CRS aged up to 16 years, with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms. Interventions: Individual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs. Results: Participants were allocated to CBT (n = 242) or TAU (n = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.32 to 1.55 points; p = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (–2.40 points, 95% CI –4.79 to –0.02 points; p = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378 (95% CI –£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p = 0.58). Conclusions: Cognitive–behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefit and how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial: a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundFor around a third of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the condition proves to respond poorly to treatment with many typical and atypical antipsychotics. This is commonly referred to as treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clozapine is the only antipsychotic with convincing efficacy for people whose symptoms are considered treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication. However, 30–40 % of such conditions will have an insufficient response to the drug. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for schizophrenia when delivered in combination with antipsychotic medication, with several meta-analyses showing robust support for this approach. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with a schizophrenia diagnosis whose symptoms are treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication is limited. There is a clinical and economic need to evaluate treatments to improve outcomes for people with such conditions.Methods/designA parallel group, prospective randomised, open, blinded evaluation of outcomes design will be used to compare a standardised cognitive behavioural therapy intervention added to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual alone (the comparator group) for individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia for whom an adequate trial of clozapine has either not been possible due to tolerability problems or was not associated with a sufficient therapeutic response. The trial will be conducted across five sites in the United Kingdom.DiscussionThe recruitment target of 485 was achieved, with a final recruitment total of 487. This trial is the largest definitive, pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia whose symptoms have failed to show an adequate response to clozapine treatment. Using a prognostic risk model, baseline information will be used to explore whether there are identifiable subgroups for which the treatment effect is greatest.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552. Registered 29th November 2012

Cognitive behavioural therapy for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: the FOCUS RCT

Background: Clozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people withschizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population.Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome.Design: The Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks ofrandom size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU).Setting: Secondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK.Participants: People with CRS aged up to 16 years, with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms. Interventions: Individual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs.Results: Participants were allocated to CBT (n = 242) or TAU (n = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.32 to 1.55 points; p = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (–2.40 points, 95% CI –4.79 to –0.02 points; p = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378(95% CI –£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p = 0.58).Conclusions: Cognitive–behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefitand how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained

Measurement of adverse events in studies of digital health interventions for psychosis: guidance and recommendations based on a literature search and framework analysis of standard operating procedures

Background: Given the rapid expansion of research into digital health interventions (DHIs) for severe mental illness (SMI; eg, schizophrenia and other psychosis diagnoses), there is an emergent need for clear safety measures. Currently, measurement and reporting of adverse events (AEs) are inconsistent across studies. Therefore, an international network, iCharts, was assembled to systematically identify and refine a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for AE reporting in DHI studies for SMI. Design: The iCharts network comprised experts on DHIs for SMI from seven countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Pakistan, Australia, United States, and China) and various professional backgrounds. Following a literature search, SOPs of AEs were obtained from authors of relevant studies, and from grey literature. Results: A thorough framework analysis of SOPs (n = 32) identified commonalities for best practice for certain domains, along with significant gaps in others; particularly around the classification of AEs during trials, and the provision of training/supervision for research staff in measuring and reporting AEs. Several areas which could lead to the observed inconsistencies in AE reporting and handling were also identified. Conclusions: The iCharts network developed best-practice guidelines and a practical resource for AE monitoring in DHI studies for psychosis, based on a systematic process which identified common features and evidence gaps. This work contributes to international efforts to standardize AE measurement and reporting in this emerging field, ensuring that safety aspects of DHIs for SMI are well-studied across the translational pathway, with monitoring systems set-up from the outset to support safe implementation in healthcare systems

SAFETEL: A pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a safety planning and telephone follow-up intervention to reduce suicidal behaviour

Background: A previous suicide attempt is an important predictor of future suicide. However, there are no evidence-based interventions administered in UK general hospital contexts to reduce suicidal behaviour in patients admitted following a suicide attempt. Consequently, the objective of this pilot randomised controlled trial was to explore whether a safety planning and telephone follow-up intervention (SAFETEL) was feasible and acceptable for individuals treated in hospital following a suicide attempt. Methods: In this three-phase study with an embedded process evaluation, a safety planning intervention was tailored to the UK context (Phase I), piloted (Phase II, n = 32), and tested in a feasibility randomised controlled trial (Phase III). In Phase III, participants were allocated to either the intervention (n = 80) or control group (n = 40) using telephone randomisation with a 2:1 ratio. The acceptability and feasibility of the trial and intervention procedures were evaluated using both qualitative (interviews and focus groups) and quantitative data. The number of hospital representations of suicidal behaviour was also collected 6 months after study recruitment based on electronic patient records. Results: Findings indicated that SAFETEL was both acceptable and feasible. Hospital staff reported the intervention fitted and complemented existing services, and patients reported that they favoured the simplicity and person-centred approach of the safety planning intervention. Conclusions: All progression criteria were met supporting further evaluation of the intervention in a full-scale clinical effectiveness trial