Development and initial evaluation of a clinical prediction model for risk of treatment resistance in first-episode psychosis: Schizophrenia Prediction of Resistance to Treatment (SPIRIT).

BACKGROUND: A clinical tool to estimate the risk of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) would inform early detection of TRS and overcome the delay of up to 5 years in starting TRS medication. AIMS: To develop and evaluate a model that could predict the risk of TRS in routine clinical practice. METHOD: We used data from two UK-based FEP cohorts (GAP and AESOP-10) to develop and internally validate a prognostic model that supports identification of patients at high-risk of TRS soon after FEP diagnosis. Using sociodemographic and clinical predictors, a model for predicting risk of TRS was developed based on penalised logistic regression, with missing data handled using multiple imputation. Internal validation was undertaken via bootstrapping, obtaining optimism-adjusted estimates of the model's performance. Interviews and focus groups with clinicians were conducted to establish clinically relevant risk thresholds and understand the acceptability and perceived utility of the model. RESULTS: We included seven factors in the prediction model that are predominantly assessed in clinical practice in patients with FEP. The model predicted treatment resistance among the 1081 patients with reasonable accuracy; the model's C-statistic was 0.727 (95% CI 0.723-0.732) prior to shrinkage and 0.687 after adjustment for optimism. Calibration was good (expected/observed ratio: 0.999; calibration-in-the-large: 0.000584) after adjustment for optimism. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and internally validated a prediction model with reasonably good predictive metrics. Clinicians, patients and carers were involved in the development process. External validation of the tool is needed followed by co-design methodology to support implementation in early intervention services.

Early Intervention in Psychosis and Management of First Episode Psychosis in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: People with first-episode psychosis (FEP) in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMIC) experience delays in receiving treatment, resulting in poorer outcomes and higher mortality. There is robust evidence for effective and cost-effective early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services for FEP, but the evidence for EIP in LMIC has not been reviewed. We aim to review the evidence on early intervention for the management of FEP in LMIC. STUDY DESIGN: We searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) to identify studies describing EIP services and interventions to treat FEP in LMIC published from 1980 onward. The bibliography of relevant articles was hand-searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. STUDY RESULTS: The search strategy produced 5074 records; we included 18 studies with 2294 participants from 6 LMIC countries. Thirteen studies (1553 participants) described different approaches for EIP. Pharmacological intervention studies (n = 4; 433 participants) found a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome among FEP receiving antipsychotics (P ≤ .005). One study found a better quality of life in patients using injectables compared to oral antipsychotics (P = .023). Among the non-pharmacological interventions (n = 3; 308 participants), SMS reminders improved treatment engagement (OR = 1.80, CI = 1.02-3.19). The methodological quality of studies evidence was relatively low. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence showed that EIP can be provided in LMIC with adaptations for cultural factors and limited resources. Adaptations included collaboration with traditional healers, involving nonspecialist healthcare professionals, using mobile technology, considering the optimum use of long-acting antipsychotics, and monitoring antipsychotic side effects.

Cognitive therapy for depression in tuberculosis treatment: protocol for multicentre pragmatic parallel arm randomised control trial with an internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is an unmet need to develop high-quality evidence addressing tuberculosis (TB)-related mental health comorbidity, particularly in the context of lower-middle-income countries. This study aims to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) in improving depressive symptoms in people with TB and comorbid depression, enhancing adherence with anti-TB treatment (ATT) and its implementation in the real-world setting of Pakistan. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic parallel arm randomised control trial with an internal pilot. A brief psychological intervention based on CBT has been developed using a combination of qualitative and ethnographic studies. The inbuilt pilot trial will have a sample size of 80, while we plan to recruit 560 (280 per arm) participants in the definitive trial. Participants who started on ATT within 1 month of diagnosis for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB or multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB) and meeting the criteria for depression on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) will be randomised with 1:1 allocation to receive six sessions of CBT (delivered by TB healthcare workers) or ETAU. Data on the feasibility outcomes of the pilot will be considered to proceed with the definitive trial. Participants will be assessed (by a blinded assessor) for the following main trial primary outcomes: (1) severity of depression using PHQ-9 scale (interviewer-administered questionnaire) at baseline, weeks 8, 24 and 32 postrandomisation and (2) ATT at baseline and week 24 at the end of ATT therapy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from Keele University Research Ethics Committee (ref: 2023-0599-792), Khyber Medical University Ethical Review Board (ref: DIR/KMU-EB/CT/000990) and National Bioethics Committee Pakistan (ref: No.4-87/NBC-998/23/587). The results of this study will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences and disseminated to stakeholders and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10761003.