Early intervention in psychosis: health economic evaluation using the net benefit approach in a real-world setting.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention in psychosis is a complex intervention, usually delivered in a specialist stand-alone setting, which aims to improve outcomes for people with psychosis. Previous studies have been criticised because the control used did not accurately reflect actual practice. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early intervention by estimating the incremental net benefit (INB) of an early-intervention programme, delivered in a real-world setting. INB measures the difference in monetary terms between alternative interventions. METHOD: Two contemporaneous incidence-based cohorts presenting with first-episode psychosis, aged 18-65 years, were compared. Costs and outcomes were measured over 1 year. The main outcome was avoidance of a relapse that required admission to hospital or home-based treatment. RESULTS: From the health sector perspective, the probability that early intervention was cost-effective was 0.77. The INB was €2465 per person (95% CI - €4418 to €9347) when society placed a value of €6000, the cost of an in-patient relapse, on preventing a relapse requiring admission or home care. Following adjustment, the probability that early intervention was cost-effective was 1, and the INB to the health sector was €3105 per person (95% CI -€8453 to €14 663). From a societal perspective, the adjusted probability that early intervention was cost-effective was 1, and the INB was €19 928 per person (95% CI - €2075 to €41 931). CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention has a modest INB from the health sector perspective and a large INB from the societal perspective. The perspective chosen is critical when presenting results of an economic evaluation of a complex intervention.

Clozapine Use in a Cohort of First-Episode Psychosis.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: For approximately one third of individuals treated for psychosis or schizophrenia, antipsychotic medications will have little or no therapeutic benefit. Clozapine remains the sole medication approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and studies have demonstrated its superior efficacy in reducing psychotic symptoms. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Data were collected from the medical records of people who originally presented with a first-episode psychosis between 1995 and 1999 (N = 171). Data were obtained from first presentation up to December 31, 2013 or until the patient was discharged or transferred. Information on service use and physical health was gathered using a data collection template designed specifically for this audit. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Twenty-eight (16.3%) of the cohort were prescribed clozapine. Data were available for 24 individuals. Of this clozapine subsample, the mean age at baseline was 23.11 (SD = 4.58); 82.14% (n = 23) were male; and 82.14% (n = 23) had a baseline diagnosis of schizophrenia. The mean time to first trial of clozapine was 6.7 years. The mean number of antipsychotics prescribed before clozapine trial was 4.85. After the initiation of clozapine, the mean number of hospital admissions reduced from 6.04 per year to 0.88 per year. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 5 of the original cohort was considered to have a suboptimal response to trials of antipsychotic medication. The use of clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia is underutilized, and better understanding of the barriers to prescribing clozapine is necessary given the implications for patient's quality of life and hospital admission rates. Physical health data further emphasizes the importance of physical health monitoring in this vulnerable population.

Systematic review of the evidence for service models delivering early intervention in psychosis outside the stand-alone centre.

AIM: Although early intervention in psychosis is an accepted policy internationally, the evidence base for this paradigm, originates mostly from the specialist model. In a real world setting, variations of this model are often implemented. The aim of this paper is to systematically evaluate the evidence for delivering early intervention outside the specialist stand-alone centre. METHODS: A systematic search following the PRISMA guidelines was undertaken in Medline, PsycInfo, Embase and the Cochrane trials register. The search was limited to articles in English from 1990 to end of January 2016. Inclusion criteria for the review comprised comparative evaluations of services delivering early intervention in psychosis outside the specialist model. Exclusion criteria included prodromal services, descriptions of services without reference to a comparator and stand-alone specialist services evaluated in comparison to treatment as usual. RESULTS: There were 637 unique citations. Twenty-eight papers were reviewed at second-stage screening. The majority were excluded as they compared specialist early intervention with treatment as usual, did not evaluate the first episode or had no comparator. Seven peer-reviewed publications and two conference papers fulfilled criteria evaluating models of delivering early intervention other than the specialist model. CONCLUSIONS: There is a spaucity of evidence evaluating models other than specialist models in early intervention. Published studies are heterogeneous in design and outcome. Although there have been two recent trials evaluating integrated early intervention in comparison with treatment as usual, it remains unclear whether reported improved outcomes of specialist centres apply to other models.

Using an alternating pressure mattress to offload heels in ICU.

The heel continues to be one of the most common sites of pressure damage. This article reviews the anatomy and physiology of the heel and explores significant risk factors, including those found in the critically ill patient. Interventions to prevent heel pressure ulceration by offloading the heel are explored. An evaluation of the Nimbus 4 alternating pressure mattress was undertaken within an intensive care unit (ICU) to consider the efficacy of its unique Wound Valve Technology, which is designed to help prevent heel pressure ulceration. During the evaluation period none of the patients using the Nimbus 4 developed a pressure ulcer. Staff observed that the Wound Valves provided effective pressure redistribution and, although the cells frequently needed to be adjusted, patient safety was maintained throughout. The Wound Valves were most effective on patients who were less prone to voluntary movement.

Laparostomy management using the ABThera™ open abdomen negative pressure therapy system in a grade IV open abdomen secondary to acute pancreatitis.

Wound control in laparostomy for the treatment of intra-abdominal hypertension remains challenging and numerous techniques have been described. We report the first UK experience with a new commercially available device specifically designed to facilitate management of the open abdomen. A 44-year-old gentleman presented with a 3-day history of constant severe epigastric pain and associated vomiting. Amylase was markedly elevated and he was admitted for supportive management of pancreatitis, with subsequent transfer to intensive care due to severe systemic inflammatory syndrome. The patient decompensated, developing intra-abdominal hypertension with renal and respiratory failure. This was successfully managed by performing a laparostomy and using an ABThera™ Open Abdomen Negative Pressure Therapy System (KCI, San Antonio, TX). We describe its use to facilitate wound control, including enteroatmospheric fistula, allowing granulation and eventual restoration of gastrointestinal continuity 383-days after admission. We found the ABThera™ System proved to be a useful treatment adjunct, protecting intra-abdominal contents while removing large volumes of exudate and infected material from within the abdominal cavity. Complex cases such as this remain infrequent and this article provides a summary of our experience, including a review of indications for laparostomy and the underlying basic science in this difficult area.