Central insulin dysregulation in antipsychotic-naïve first-episode psychosis: In silico exploration of gene expression signatures.

Antipsychotic drug (AP)-naïve first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients display premorbid cognitive dysfunctions and dysglycemia. Brain insulin resistance may link metabolic and cognitive disorders in humans. This suggests that central insulin dysregulation represents a component of the pathophysiology of psychosis spectrum disorders (PSDs). Nonetheless, the links between central insulin dysregulation, dysglycemia, and cognitive deficits in PSDs are poorly understood. We investigated whether AP-naïve FEP patients share overlapping brain gene expression signatures with central insulin perturbation (CIP) in rodent models. We systematically compiled and meta-analyzed peripheral transcriptomic datasets of AP-naïve FEP patients along with hypothalamic and hippocampal datasets of CIP rodent models to identify common transcriptomic signatures. The common signatures were used for pathway analysis and to identify potential drug treatments with discordant (reverse) signatures. AP-naïve FEP and CIP (hypothalamus and hippocampus) shared 111 and 346 common signatures respectively, which were associated with pathways related to inflammation, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and neuroplasticity. Twenty-two potential drug treatments were identified, including antidiabetic agents. The pathobiology of PSDs may include central insulin dysregulation, which contribute to dysglycemia and cognitive dysfunction independently of AP treatment. The identified treatments may be tested in early psychosis patients to determine if dysglycemia and cognitive deficits can be mitigated.

Glucose dysregulation in antipsychotic-naive first-episode psychosis: in silico exploration of gene expression signatures.

Antipsychotic (AP)-naive first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients display early dysglycemia, including insulin resistance and prediabetes. Metabolic dysregulation may therefore be intrinsic to psychosis spectrum disorders (PSDs), independent of the metabolic effects of APs. However, the potential biological pathways that overlap between PSDs and dysglycemic states remain to be identified. Using meta-analytic approaches of transcriptomic datasets, we investigated whether AP-naive FEP patients share overlapping gene expression signatures with non-psychiatrically ill early dysglycemia individuals. We meta-analyzed peripheral transcriptomic datasets of AP-naive FEP patients and non-psychiatrically ill early dysglycemia subjects to identify common gene expression signatures. Common signatures underwent pathway enrichment analysis and were then used to identify potential new pharmacological compounds via Integrative Library of Integrated Network-Based Cellular Signatures (iLINCS). Our search results yielded 5 AP-naive FEP studies and 4 early dysglycemia studies which met inclusion criteria. We discovered that AP-naive FEP and non-psychiatrically ill subjects exhibiting early dysglycemia shared 221 common signatures, which were enriched for pathways related to endoplasmic reticulum stress and abnormal brain energetics. Nine FDA-approved drugs were identified as potential drug treatments, of which the antidiabetic metformin, the first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, has evidence to attenuate metabolic dysfunction in PSDs. Taken together, our findings support shared gene expression changes and biological pathways associating PSDs with dysglycemic disorders. These data suggest that the pathobiology of PSDs overlaps and potentially contributes to dysglycemia. Finally, we find that metformin may be a potential treatment for early metabolic dysfunction intrinsic to PSDs.

How well do critical care audit and feedback interventions adhere to best practice? Development and application of the REFLECT-52 evaluation tool.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions have been shown to be an effective means of changing healthcare professional behavior, but work is required to optimize them, as evidence suggests that A&F interventions are not improving over time. Recent published guidance has suggested an initial set of best practices that may help to increase intervention effectiveness, which focus on the "Nature of the desired action," "Nature of the data available for feedback," "Feedback display," and "Delivering the feedback intervention." We aimed to develop a generalizable evaluation tool that can be used to assess whether A&F interventions conform to these suggestions for best practice and conducted initial testing of the tool through application to a sample of critical care A&F interventions. METHODS: We used a consensus-based approach to develop an evaluation tool from published guidance and subsequently applied the tool to conduct a secondary analysis of A&F interventions. To start, the 15 suggestions for improved feedback interventions published by Brehaut et al. were deconstructed into rateable items. Items were developed through iterative consensus meetings among researchers. These items were then piloted on 12 A&F studies (two reviewers met for consensus each time after independently applying the tool to four A&F intervention studies). After each consensus meeting, items were modified to improve clarity and specificity, and to help increase the reliability between coders. We then assessed the conformity to best practices of 17 critical care A&F interventions, sourced from a systematic review of A&F interventions on provider ordering of laboratory tests and transfusions in the critical care setting. Data for each criteria item was extracted by one coder and confirmed by a second; results were then aggregated and presented graphically or in a table and described narratively. RESULTS: In total, 52 criteria items were developed (38 ratable items and 14 descriptive items). Eight studies targeted lab test ordering behaviors, and 10 studies targeted blood transfusion ordering. Items focused on specifying the "Nature of the Desired Action" were adhered to most commonly-feedback was often presented in the context of an external priority (13/17), showed or described a discrepancy in performance (14/17), and in all cases it was reasonable for the recipients to be responsible for the change in behavior (17/17). Items focused on the "Nature of the Data Available for Feedback" were adhered to less often-only some interventions provided individual (5/17) or patient-level data (5/17), and few included aspirational comparators (2/17), or justifications for specificity of feedback (4/17), choice of comparator (0/9) or the interval between reports (3/13). Items focused on the "Nature of the Feedback Display" were reported poorly-just under half of interventions reported providing feedback in more than one way (8/17) and interventions rarely included pilot-testing of the feedback (1/17 unclear) or presentation of a visual display and summary message in close proximity of each other (1/13). Items focused on "Delivering the Feedback Intervention" were also poorly reported-feedback rarely reported use of barrier/enabler assessments (0/17), involved target members in the development of the feedback (0/17), or involved explicit design to be received and discussed in a social context (3/17); however, most interventions clearly indicated who was providing the feedback (11/17), involved a facilitator (8/12) or involved engaging in self-assessment around the target behavior prior to receipt of feedback (12/17). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the theory-informed best practice items were not consistently applied in critical care and can suggest clear ways to improve interventions. Standardized reporting of detailed intervention descriptions and feedback templates may also help to further advance research in this field. The 52-item tool can serve as a basis for reliably assessing concordance with best practice guidance in existing A&F interventions trialed in other healthcare settings, and could be used to inform future A&F intervention development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.