Eliciting the mechanisms of action of care navigators in the management of type 2 diabetes in people with severe mental illness: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness and type 2 diabetes have a reduced life expectancy compared to the general population. One factor that contributes to this is the inability to provide optimal management, as the two conditions are typically managed by separate physical and mental health systems. The role of care navigators in coordinating diabetes care in people with severe mental illness may provide a solution to better management. AIM: To explore the views of clinicians and people with severe mental illness and type 2 diabetes on an integrated health service model with a focus on the care navigator to identify potential mechanisms of action. DESIGN: Qualitative one-to-one semi-structured interviews and part of a wider pilot intervention study. SETTING: Community Mental Health Unit in South London. METHOD: Topic guides explored the perspectives and experiences of both clinicians and people with severe mental illness and diabetes. Data analysis was conducted using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: From the analysis of 19 participants, five main themes emerged regarding the care navigator role: administrative service; signposting to local services; adhering to lifestyle changes and medication; engaging in social activities; further skills and training needed. The key findings from this study emphasise the benefits that the role of a care navigator has in helping people with severe mental illness to better manage their diabetes i.e. through diet, exercise medication and attending essential health check-ups. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that having a care navigator in place empowers those with severe mental illness to improve the management of their diabetes. Future research should focus on the extent to which care navigators are effective in improving specific outcomes.

Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Outcomes in People With Early Psychosis: The DFEND Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: People with psychotic disorders have an increased risk of vitamin D deficiency, which is evident during first-episode psychosis (FEP) and associated with unfavorable mental and physical health outcomes. Objective: To examine whether vitamin D supplementation contributes to improved clinical outcomes in FEP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group randomized clinical trial from the UK examined adults 18 to 65 years of age within 3 years of a first presentation with a functional psychotic disorder who had no contraindication to vitamin D supplementation. A total of 2136 patients were assessed for eligibility, 835 were approached, 686 declined participation or were excluded, 149 were randomized, and 104 were followed up at 6 months. The study recruited participants from January 19, 2016, to June 14, 2019, with the final follow-up (after the last dose) completed on December 20, 2019. Interventions: Monthly augmentation with 120 000 IU of cholecalciferol or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included total PANSS score at 3 months; PANSS positive, negative, and general psychopathology subscale scores at 3 and 6 months; Global Assessment of Function scores (for symptoms and disability); Calgary Depression Scale score, waist circumference, body mass index, and glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and vitamin D concentrations at 6 months; and a planned sensitivity analysis in those with insufficient vitamin D levels at baseline. Results: A total of 149 participants (mean [SD] age, 28.1 (8.5) years; 89 [59.7%] male; 65 [43.6%] Black or of other minoritized racial and ethnic group; 84 [56.4%] White [British, Irish, or of other White ethnicity]) were randomized. No differences were observed in the intention-to-treat analysis in the primary outcome, total PANSS score at 6 months (mean difference, 3.57; 95% CI, -1.11 to 8.25; P = .13), or the secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months (PANSS positive subscore: mean difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.23 to 0.27 at 3 months; mean difference, 0.68; 95% CI, -0.69 to 1.99 at 6 months; PANSS negative subscore: mean difference, 0.68; 95% CI, -1.39 to 2.76 at 3 months; mean difference, 1.56; 95% CI, -0.31 to 3.44 at 6 months; and general psychopathology subscore: mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -4.36 to 0.18 at 3 months; mean difference, 1.31; 95% CI, -1.42 to 4.05 at 6 months). There also were no significant differences in the Global Assessment of Function symptom score (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, -4.60 to 4.94); Global Assessment of Function disability score (mean difference, -0.01; 95% CI, -5.25 to 5.23), or Calgary Depression Scale score (mean difference, -0.39; 95% CI, -2.05 to 1.26) at 6 months. Vitamin D levels were very low in the study group, especially in Black participants and those who identified as another minoritized racial and ethnic group, 57 of 61 (93.4%) of whom had insufficient vitamin D. The treatment was safe and led to a significant increase in 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, no association was found between vitamin D supplementation and mental health or metabolic outcomes at 6 months. Because so few patients with FEP were vitamin D replete, the results of this study suggest that this group would benefit from active consideration in future population health strategies. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12424842.

Vitamin D in the time of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic - a clinical review from a public health and public mental health perspective.

Individuals with serious mental disorders (SMD) may have a higher risk of vitamin D (VIT-D) deficiency. They also experience higher mortality because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Therefore, we have conducted a comprehensive review to examine the significance of VIT-D for public health and public mental health during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This review had three specific aims, from a global perspective to (a) create a profile of VIT-D and review the epidemiology of VIT-D deficiency, (b) explore VIT-D deficiency as risk factor for SMD and COVID-19 infections and (c) examine the effectiveness of VIT-D supplementation for both conditions. We found that, in terms of SMD, the evidence from laboratory and observational studies points towards some association between VIT-D deficiency and depression or schizophrenia. Mendelian randomisation studies, however, suggest no, or reverse, causality. The evidence from intervention studies is conflicting. Concerning COVID-19 infection, on proof of principle, VIT-D could provide a plausible defence against the infection itself and against an adverse clinical course. But data from observational studies and the first preliminary intervention studies remain conflicting, with stronger evidence that VIT-D may mitigate the clinical course of COVID-19 infection rather than the risk of infection in the first place. From a public health and public mental health point of view, based on the currently limited knowledge, for individuals with SMD, the benefits of VIT-D optimisation through supplementation seem to outweigh the risks. VIT-D supplementation, however, should not substitute for vaccination or medical care for COVID-19 infection.

Vitamin D supplementation compared to placebo in people with First Episode psychosis - Neuroprotection Design (DFEND): a protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing their first episode of psychosis are often deficient in vitamin D. Observational studies have reported an association between low vitamin D concentrations and poorer subsequent health outcomes in psychosis. A vitamin D deficiency in neonates and children has been linked to a later increased risk of schizophrenia and psychotic-like experiences. This trial aims to examine the effect of high-dose vitamin D supplementation on outcomes in early psychosis. We hypothesise that vitamin D supplementation will be associated with better mental health outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The DFEND study is a multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group trial of vitamin D supplementation in people with early psychosis. Patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of functional psychosis will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 120,000 IU/month of vitamin D (cholecalciferol) or a matched placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome is the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score at the 6-month follow-up for all patients. Secondary outcomes include assessment of mood (Calgary Depression Scale), general function (Global Assessment of Functioning), cardiovascular risk (body mass index, waist circumference, C-reactive protein, cholesterol and HbA1c) and vitamin D levels at the 6-month follow-up. Additionally, 3- and 6-month total PANSS scores will be analysed for those with inadequate vitamin D levels at the baseline. DISCUSSION: The DFEND study is the first trial to examine whether vitamin D supplementation in early psychosis is associated with better mental health outcomes. The findings of this study may help to resolve the clinical equipoise regarding the benefits and cost-effectiveness of routine vitamin D supplementation in people with psychosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12424842. Registered on 25 February 2015.

Vitamin D and clinical symptoms in First Episode Psychosis (FEP): A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of longitudinal research investigating vitamin D in people with early psychosis. METHOD: Vitamin D levels were measured in 168 patients (64% (n = 108) male, mean age 29.3 (9.8) years) with first episode psychosis (FEP), along with measures of clinical state at baseline and at 12 months follow up. We assessed the a) cross sectional, and; b) longitudinal relationships between continuous and categorical 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and clinical symptoms at first contact for psychosis and at 12 months. RESULTS: In FEP, 80% (n = 134) at baseline, and 76% at 12 months follow up, had suboptimal vitamin D levels (<20 ng/ml). Suboptimal levels of 25 (OH) D at baseline were not cross-sectionally associated with clinical symptoms. Higher vitamin D levels at baseline (n = 77) were significantly associated with better visual reproduction-immediate recall (ß = 0.249, 95%CI = -0.012-0.871, p = 0.044). Higher baseline vitamin D levels were prospectively associated with lower total PANSS (ß = -0.24, 95%CI = -0.47-0.01, p = 0.04) and PANSS negative symptom scores (ß = -0.12, 95%CI = -0.23-0.01, p = 0.04) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: We identified a prospective association between higher baseline serum Vitamin D levels and lower total psychotic symptoms and negative symptoms of psychosis at 12 months after first contact for psychosis. The results of this study require replication in larger prospective studies, and highlight the need for large randomised trials to assess the effect of vitamin D supplementation on symptoms of psychosis in FEP.

Randomised control trial of the effectiveness of an integrated psychosocial health promotion intervention aimed at improving health and reducing substance use in established psychosis (IMPaCT).

BACKGROUND: People with psychosis have a reduced life expectancy of 10-20 years, largely due to cardiovascular disease. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness of a modular health promotion intervention (IMPaCT Therapy) in improving health and reducing cardiovascular risk in psychosis. METHODS: A multicentre, two arm, parallel cluster RCT was conducted across five UK mental health NHS trusts. Community care coordinators (CC) were randomly assigned to training and supervision in delivering IMPaCT Therapy or treatment as usual (TAU) to current patients with psychosis (cluster). The primary outcome was the physical and mental health subscales of the Short form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 104 care coordinators recruited, 52 (with 213 patients) were randomised to deliver IMPaCT therapy and 52 (with 193 patients) randomised to TAU. Of 406 patients, 318 (78%) and 301 (74%) attended 12- and 15-month follow-up respectively. IMPaCT therapy showed no significant effect on the physical or mental health component SF-36 scores versus TAU at 12 or 15 months. No effect was observed for cardiovascular risk indicators, except for HDL cholesterol, which improved more with IMPACT therapy than TAU (Treatment effect (95% CI); 0.085 (0.007 to 0.16); p = 0.034). The 22% of patients who received >180 min of IMPACT Therapy in addition to usual care achieved a greater reduction in waist circumference than did controls, which was clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Training and supervising community care coordinators to use IMPaCT therapy in patients with psychosis is insufficient to significantly improve physical or mental health quality of life. The search for effective, pragmatic interventions deliverable in health care services continues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered with ISRCTN registry on 23/4/2010 at ISRCTN58667926 ; recruitment started on 01/03/2010 with first randomization on 09.08.2010 ISRCTN58667926 .

Randomised controlled trial to improve health and reduce substance use in established psychosis (IMPaCT): cost-effectiveness of integrated psychosocial health promotion.

BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence that people with severe mental illness have unhealthy lifestyles, high rates of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, and greater risk of early mortality. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a health promotion intervention seeking to improve physical health and reduce substance use in people with psychosis. METHODS: Participants with a psychotic disorder, aged 18-65 years old and registered on an enhanced care approach programme or equivalent were recruited from community mental health teams in six mental health trusts in England. Participants were randomisation to either standard community mental health team care (treatment as usual) or treatment as usual with an integrated health promotion intervention (IMPaCT). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and societal perspectives were conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. Total health and social care costs and total societal costs at 12 and 15 months were calculated as well as cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves) at 15 months based on quality of life (SF-36 mental and physical health components, primary outcome measures) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using two measures, EQ-5D-3 L and SF-36. Data were analysed using bootstrapped regressions with covariates for relevant baseline variables. RESULTS: At 12-15 months 301 participants had full data needed to be included in the economic evaluation. There were no differences in adjusted health and social care costs (£95, 95% CI -£1410 to £1599) or societal costs (£675, 95% CI -£1039 to £2388) between the intervention and control arms. Similarly, there were no differences between the groups in the SF-36 mental component (-0.80, 95% CI -3.66 to 2.06), SF-36 physical component (-0.68, 95% CI -3.01 to 1.65), QALYs estimated from the SF-36 (-0.00, -0.01 to 0.00) or QALYs estimated from the EQ-5D-3 L (0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for all four outcomes and from both cost perspectives indicate that the probability of the health promotion intervention being cost-effective does not exceed 0.4 for willingness to pay thresholds ranging from £0-£50,000. CONCLUSIONS: Alongside no evidence of additional quality of life/clinical benefit, there is also no evidence of cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58667926 . Date retrospectively registered: 23/04/2010. Recruitment start date: 01/03/2010.

Substance use, medication adherence and outcome one year following a first episode of psychosis.

Both substance use and poor medication adherence are associated with poor outcome in psychosis. To clarify the contributions of substance use and poor medication adherence to poor outcome in the year following a first episode of psychosis, 205 patients were evaluated for use of tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and stimulants at their psychosis onset, and in a 1-year follow-up. Data on medication adherence and symptom remission were also collected. Patients had high rates of overall substance use before (37-65%) and after psychosis onset (45-66%). 44% showed poor medication adherence and 55% did not reach remission from psychosis. Nicotine dependence and cannabis use after psychosis onset significantly predicted both poor medication adherence and non-remission, and poor medication adherence mediated the effects of these substances on non-remission. In conclusion, medication adherence lies on the causal pathway between nicotine dependence and cannabis on the one hand and non-remission on the other.