Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Unilateral adrenalectomy as a treatment option in a patient with recurrent Cushing's disease.

In recurrent Cushing's disease (CD), therapeutic management options may pose challenges related to risk-benefit profile of available pharmacological agents or bilateral adrenalectomy. Here, we describe a patient with recurrent CD who in context of progressive worsening of diabetes control and new diagnosis of coronary artery disease was offered a unilateral adrenalectomy (UA) to help alleviate the metabolic burden of hypercortisolemia. Within 6 months following UA she was able to stop her blood pressure medications; her anti-diabetes medications were significantly titrated down and she experienced significant weight loss. Currently, 18 months after the UA, the patient has not experienced new clinical events, her weight is stable and diabetes control is consistently optimal, and she remains off anti-hypertensive medications. This report adds to currently scarce body of literature that patients with difficult to manage CD can be considered as candidates for UA to potentially alleviate the metabolic burden of hypercortisolemia.

Status of primary and secondary mental healthcare of people with severe mental illness: an epidemiological study from the UK PARTNERS2 programme.

BACKGROUND: There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. AIMS: This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK. METHOD: We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012-2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages. RESULTS: The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14-68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5-20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.

A comparison of amount and speed of deposition between the PARI LC STAR® jet nebulizer and an investigational eFlow® nebulizer.

BACKGROUND: The potency and physical properties of many of the drugs used in the treatment of cystic fibrosis necessitates the use of nebulization, a relatively time-consuming pulmonary delivery method. Newer, faster, and more efficient delivery systems are being proposed. The purposes of this study was to compare the length of time it took to deliver the equivalent of normal saline nebulized for 10 min in a PARI LC STAR(®) nebulizer to that of an investigational PARI eFlow(®). METHODS: Six normal adults inhaled a 4-mL (36-mg) charge volume of saline from the LC STAR(®) or a 2.5-mL (22.5-mg) charge volume from the investigational eFlow(®). The saline was mixed with (99m)Tc-DTPA to allow two-dimensional imaging. The inhalation was preceded by a xenon equilibration scan to allow more accurate separation of deposition into central and peripheral lung regions. RESULTS: The investigational eFlow(®) delivered 8.6 ± 1.0 mg, approximately 90% of the lung dose compared to the LC STAR(®), 9.6 ± 1.0 mg, but did in less than half the time (p < 0.02 for both). There were no differences in central versus peripheral distribution for either device. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion the investigational eFlow(®) was both faster and more efficient than the LC STAR(®).

Higher tobramycin concentration and vibrating mesh technology can shorten antibiotic treatment time in cystic fibrosis.

Poor adherence to recommended therapy in cystic fibrosis (CF) is often because of the time demands of therapy. Tobramycin (TOBI®, 300 mg at 60 mg/ml) inhaled from the PARI LC PLUS® nebulizer requires about 20 min. This study determined if equivalent levels of pulmonary deposition could be achieved in shorter time using 1.5 ml of 100 mg/ml tobramycin solution delivered by an investigational eFlow® nebulizer. Sixteen males with stable CF, 8 children and 8 adults, and an FEV(1) > 45% predicted inhaled both preparations on two occasions with (99m) Tc-DTPA added to the tobramycin. Blood samples were taken for quantification of tobramycin in the serum. The PARI LC PLUS® delivered 45.4 (39.3-51.6), mean and 95% CI, mg to the lungs in 17.0 ± 2.5 min (mean ± SD) with serum levels of 1,089 ± 388 µg/L. The investigational eFlow® delivered 46.3(40.3-51.7) mg in 4.0 ± 1.0 min with blood levels of 909 ± 458 µg/L. Only the time of delivery was significantly different with P < 0.0001 (paired t-test). Tolerability of the treatment was comparable for both inhalation regimes, but the shorter treatment was preferred by all patients. These results demonstrate the possibility of delivering equivalent levels of tobramycin much faster into the lungs of CF patients when using eFlow®, a very efficient electronic nebulizer.

Rapid pulmonary delivery of inhaled tobramycin for Pseudomonas infection in cystic fibrosis: a pilot project.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cystic fibrosis spend as much 30 min a day inhaling tobramycin. Could a new rapid system deposit the equivalent amount of tobramycin faster? METHODS: Six healthy adult males inhaled 5 ml (300 mg) of tobramycin from a breath enhanced nebulizer and either 125 mg (n = 3) or 150 mg (n = 3) from a vibrating membrane system with a large or small aerosol mixing chamber respectively. A radiolabel was added to the solution and shown to "track" with the tobramycin. Imaging was done with a dual headed gamma camera. Because the radiolabel will be cleared by mucociliary action during administration, algorithms were developed to allow the comparison of a slower system to a faster one. RESULTS: Both formulations were well tolerated. The lung deposition was 16.6 +/- 3.2% (mean +/- SD) of the charge dose delivered in 10.9 +/- 1.0 min for the breath enhanced nebulizer versus 32.0 +/- 5.1% delivered in 2.5 +/- 0.4 min from the vibrating membrane system. The absolute pulmonary delivery of tobramycin was 49.9 +/- 9.6 versus 43.9 +/- 4.8 mg for the two systems respectively, differences that were statistically significant (pair t-test) but unlikely to be clinically significant. There was a similar deposition of tobramycin for the 125 and 150 mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to deliver an equivalent amount of tobramycin in a shorter period of time with the new vibrating membrane system and a more concentrated formulation. These data will allow the design of a comparison in patients with CF.

Assessment of multiple intravenous pumps infusing into a single site.

Much research has examined drug concentration and flow rates for a single intravenous pump infusing into a single site, but there is no information on the delivery of medications when a multiple-pump system is required. The intent of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of multiple-pump systems infusing into a single site. We noted large fluctuations when multiple intravenous pumps infused into a single site.

The challenges of quantitative measurement of lung deposition using 99mTc-DTPA from delivery systems with very different delivery times.

In quantifying aerosol delivery, the drug is often mixed with a radiolabel such as (99m)Tc-DTPA whose deposition is used as a proxy for the drug. (99m)Tc-DTPA deposited in the lung is cleared by a combination of absorption into the pulmonary circulation and mucociliary clearance. If administration is not instantaneous, the image will not include that clearance during administration, a problem raised if comparing devices with different administration times. However, if rates of clearance are measured, it will be possible to "correct" the initial image for the clearance that occurred during administration and before counting. Five adult males inhaled a 5-mL solution containing (99m)Tc-DTPA from a breath enhanced jet nebulizer (LC Plus)over the course of 10 min and a 1.25-mL solution from a vibrating membrane device (eFlow), which was delivered in 2.5 min. Quality assurance was the radioactivity count balance (RCB) defined as the difference in the total radioactivity pre-nebulization less post, divided by pre, and expressed as a percentage. Attenuation calculations used a (57)Co flood source (Macey and Marshall). The "correction" for the clearance of (99m)Tc-DTPA was 0.91 +/- 0.04 (mean +/- SD) for the LC Plus) and 0.96 +/- 0.02 for the eFlow). RCB was -0.6 +/- 3.5% for the LC Plus and -4.7 +/- 6.4% for the eFlow, implying acceptable accuracy. For the LC Plus, lung deposition was 15.9(13.4, 18.4)% (mean and 95% CI) of the charge dose, and for the eFlow it was 32.0(29.0, 35.0)%. This technique gave an acceptable level of accuracy for quantitative planar imaging and allowed the comparison of delivery from devices with very different rates of delivery.