Psychiatrists' perspectives on antipsychotic dose and the role of plasma concentration therapeutic drug monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Why psychiatrists choose a particular dose of antipsychotic for an individual patient with schizophrenia is unknown. This study aimed to investigate consultant psychiatrists' perspectives on the dose titration and their attitudes towards therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for antipsychotics. METHOD: A cross-sectional quantitative questionnaire study of consultant psychiatrists based in London was conducted. A new questionnaire was developed, in part, based on the findings from focus groups. Themes included dose choice, titration, switching, and the pros and cons of TDM use. RESULTS: For 105 consultant psychiatrists, choice of antipsychotic was most influenced by perceived side-effects/tolerance (63.8%). When choosing an optimum dose, most based this on their past clinical experience of patients presenting in a similar way (80.0%), perspectives on the equivalent doses of 2 antipsychotics (69.5%), or the individual patient's stated dose preference (61.9%). Factors thought to warrant a lower dose (eg, first episode psychosis) were consistent with a former study, and 59.0% of the clinicians believed it acceptable to switch antipsychotics ≥4 per year. The majority of clinicians currently routinely use TDM for clozapine (82.9%), and previous use of TDM for clozapine was found to predict likely future use of TDM with antipsychotics (χ = 5.51, P = 0.019). Furthermore, clinicians agreed that TDM could assist in minimizing the risk of dose-related side effects (77.1%). However, 32.4% did not agree that TDM would improve clinical outcomes. Overall, there was a positive attitude towards TDM for antipsychotics, and almost all clinicians (84.8%, 95% confidence interval, 77.9-91.7) would use it if widely available. CONCLUSIONS: Current prescribing decisions regarding antipsychotic dose are mainly influenced by clinician intuition, previous experience, and patient preference. Although some expressed concerns regarding the evidence base, most clinicians reported that they would use TDM for antipsychotics if readily available.

Cognitive-behaviour therapy for health anxiety in medical patients (CHAMP): a randomised controlled trial with outcomes to 5 years.

BACKGROUND: Health anxiety is an under-recognised but frequent cause of distress that is potentially treatable, but there are few studies in secondary care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) for health anxiety (CBT-HA) compared with standard care in medical outpatients. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five general hospitals in London, Middlesex and Nottinghamshire. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 444 patients aged 16-75 years seen in cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, neurology and respiratory medicine clinics who scored ≥ 20 points on the Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI) and satisfied diagnostic requirements for hypochondriasis. Those with current psychiatric disorders were excluded, but those with concurrent medical illnesses were not. INTERVENTIONS: Cognitive-behaviour therapy for health anxiety - between 4 and 10 1-hour sessions of CBT-HA from a health professional or psychologist trained in the treatment. Standard care was normal practice in primary and secondary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - researchers masked to allocation assessed patients at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 months and 5 years. The primary outcome was change in the HAI score between baseline and 12 months. Main secondary outcomes - costs of care in the two groups after 24 and 60 months, change in health anxiety (HAI), generalised anxiety and depression [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)] scores, social functioning using the Social Functioning Questionnaire and quality of life using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months, and deaths over 5 years. RESULTS: Of the 28,991 patients screened over 21 months, 5769 had HAI scores of ≥ 20 points. Improvement in HAI scores at 3 months was significantly greater in the CBT-HA group (mean number of sessions = 6) than in the standard care, and this was maintained over the 5-year period (overall p < 0.0001), with no loss of efficacy between 2 and 5 years. Differences in the generalised anxiety (p = 0.0018) and depression scores (p = 0.0065) on the HADS were similar in both groups over the 5-year period. Gastroenterology and cardiology patients showed the greatest CBT gains. The outcomes for nurses were superior to those of other therapists. Deaths (n = 24) were similar in both groups; those in standard care died earlier than those in CBT-HA. Patients with mild personality disturbance and higher dependence levels had the best outcome with CBT-HA. Total costs were similar in both groups over the 5-year period (£12,590.58 for CBT-HA; £13,334.94 for standard care). CBT-HA was not cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, as measured using the EQ-5D, but was cost-effective in terms of HAI outcomes, and offset the cost of treatment. LIMITATIONS: Many eligible patients were not randomised and the population treated may not be representative. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-HA is a highly effective treatment for pathological health anxiety with lasting benefit over 5 years. It also improves generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms more than standard care. The presence of personality abnormality is not a bar to successful outcome. CBT-HA may also be cost-effective, but the high costs of concurrent medical illnesses obscure potential savings. This treatment deserves further research in medical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14565822. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Problem Behaviour Checklist: short scale to assess challenging behaviours.

BACKGROUND: Challenging behaviour, especially in intellectual disability, covers a wide range that is in need of further evaluation. AIMS: To develop a short but comprehensive instrument for all aspects of challenging behaviour. METHOD: In the first part of a two-stage enquiry, a 28-item scale was constructed to examine the components of challenging behaviour. Following a simple factor analysis this was developed further to create a new short scale, the Problem Behaviour Checklist (PBCL). The scale was subsequently used in a randomised controlled trial and tested for interrater reliability. Scores were also compared with a standard scale, the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS). RESULTS: Seven identified factors - personal violence, violence against property, self-harm, sexually inappropriate, contrary, demanding and disappearing behaviour - were scored on a 5-point scale. A subsequent factor analysis with the second population showed demanding, violent and contrary behaviour to account for most of the variance. Interrater reliability using weighted kappa showed good agreement (0.91; 95% CI 0.83-0.99). Good agreement was also shown with scores on the MOAS and a score of 1 on the PBCL showed high sensitivity (97%) and specificity (85%) for a threshold MOASscore of 4. CONCLUSIONS: The PBCL appears to be a suitable and practical scale for assessing all aspects of challenging behaviour. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © 2016 The Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.

Regaining control: the patient experience of supervised compared with unsupervised consumption in opiate substitution treatment.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Supervised consumption of opiate substitution treatment is standard practice in the UK yet little is known about the patient experience of this treatment modality. This study aimed to assess the patient experience of receiving supervised compared with unsupervised consumption of methadone or buprenorphine. DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative study utilising a grounded theory approach to analysis. Participants (29) were theoretically sampled from 293 opioid-dependent patients entering a randomised controlled trial of opiate substitution treatment across four urban and community drug treatment services in England. Multidisciplinary staff were recruited for interviews and focus groups (55). RESULTS: Supervised consumption was accepted by patients, despite causing practical limitations and raising issues of privacy and stigma. Patients recognised that establishing a daily routine away from illicit drugs was useful early in treatment. However, having flexibility to move away from supervision was important. Unsupervised patients reported that they ultimately preferred this treatment approach and appreciated the trust and sense of reward that unsupervised treatment bought. Clinicians expressed confidence in supervised prescribing and reduced risk for their patients, but also concern that a minority of individuals may remain inappropriately supervised for lengthy time periods. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an important patient perspective and is the first in-depth qualitative investigation directly comparing supervision with unsupervised treatment to consider both patient and professional perspectives. Overall, our qualitative findings suggest that flexibly timed discontinuation of supervision may have positive benefits.

Prevalence of health anxiety problems in medical clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of significant health anxiety (hypochondriasis) in patients aged 16-75 in cardiology, respiratory medicine, neurological, endocrine and gastrointestinal clinics in general hospitals in London, Middlesex and North Nottinghamshire. METHOD: The Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI) (short form) was administered to patients attending the five clinics over a 21 month period and all those who scored 20 or more invited to take part in a further assessment for a randomised controlled trial. RESULTS: Of 43,205 patients attending the clinics 28,991 (67.1%) were assessed and of these, after exclusion of ineligible patients 5747 (19.8%) had significant health anxiety. 444 subsequently agreed to take part in a randomised controlled trial of treatment. The prevalence levels varied by clinic with neurology (24.7%) having the highest prevalence followed by respiratory medicine (20.9%), gastroenterology (19.5%), cardiology (19.1%), and endocrinology (17.5%). CONCLUSION: Abnormal health anxiety is common and a significant problem in those attending medical clinics and deserves greater awareness.