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.

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.