Management of medically assisted withdrawal from alcohol in acute adult mental health and specialist addictions in-patient services: UK clinical audit findings.

BACKGROUND: Medically assisted alcohol withdrawal (MAAW) is increasingly undertaken on acute adult psychiatric wards. AIMS: Comparison of the quality of MAAW between acute adult wards and specialist addictions units in mental health services. METHOD: Clinical audit conducted by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health (POMH). Information on MAAW was collected from clinical records using a bespoke data collection tool. RESULTS: Forty-five National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts/healthcare organisations submitted data relating to the treatment of 908 patients undergoing MAAW on an acute adult ward or psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) and 347 admitted to a specialist NHS addictions unit. MAAW had been overseen by an addiction specialist in 33 (4%) of the patients on an acute adult ward/PICU. A comprehensive alcohol history, measurement of breath alcohol, full screening for Wernicke's encephalopathy, use of parenteral thiamine, prescription of medications for relapse prevention (such as acamprosate) and referral for specialist continuing care of alcohol-related problems following discharge were all more commonly documented when care was provided on a specialist unit or when there was specialist addictions management on an acute ward. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the quality of care provided for medically assisted withdrawal from alcohol, including the use of evidence-based interventions, is better when clinicians with specialist addictions training are involved. This has implications for future quality improvement in the provision of MAAW in acute adult mental health settings.

Plus ça change? Switching lithium preparations.

AIMS AND METHOD: A supply disruption alert in 2020, now rescinded, notified UK prescribers of the planned discontinuation of Priadel® (lithium carbonate) tablets. This service evaluation explored lithium dose and plasma levels before and after the switching of lithium brands, in order to determine the interchangeability of different brands of lithium from a pharmacokinetic perspective. RESULTS: Data on the treatment of 37 patients switched from Priadel® tablets were analysed. Switching to Camcolit® controlled-release tablets at the same dose did not result in meaningful differences in plasma lithium levels. Dose adjustment and known or suspected poor medication adherence were associated with greater variability in plasma lithium levels on switching brands. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For comparable pre- and post-switch doses in adherent patients, the most common brands of lithium carbonate appear to produce similar plasma lithium levels. British National Formulary guidance relating to switching lithium brands may be unnecessarily complex.

Who is prescribed valproate and how carefully is this treatment reviewed in UK mental health services? Data from a clinical audit.

Background: The licensed indications for valproate are narrow, yet this medication is commonly prescribed in mental health services. Objectives: To explore the target symptoms/behaviours for which valproate is prescribed and how well the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment are monitored in routine clinical practice. Design: An audit-based quality improvement (QI) programme in UK mental health services. Methods: Information on valproate prescribing was collected from clinical records using a bespoke data collection tool. Results: Sixty-four NHS mental health Trusts/healthcare organisations submitted data on valproate treatment for 5320 patients. Valproate was clearly prescribed for a licensed indication in 1995 (38%) patients, off-label in 1987 (37%) while the indication was uncertain/not available in 1338 (25%). Of the 919 patients started on valproate treatment within the past year, between a half and two-thirds had each of the relevant baseline physical health checks documented. In 539 (59%) of these patients, valproate was prescribed for an unlicensed indication; the prescription was recognised as off-label in 363 (67%), 20 (6%) of whom were documented as having had this explained to them. Of 631 patients prescribed valproate for between 3 months and a year, early on-treatment assessments of response and side effects were documented in 441 (70%) and 332 (53%), respectively. Of 4401 patients treated for more than a year, annual on-treatment reviews of clinical response and side effects were documented in 2771 (63%) and 2140 (49%), respectively. Conclusion: Our data suggest the majority of prescriptions for valproate in mental health services are not for a licensed indication. Furthermore, patients rarely receive an explanation that their valproate prescription is off-label, perhaps partly because the licensed indications are not widely understood by prescribers. Given the very limited evidence for efficacy for the off-label uses of valproate, failure to routinely conduct early on-treatment and annual reviews of the benefits and side effects of this medication may result in patients remaining on ineffective and poorly tolerated treatment by default.

Prescribing clozapine in the UK: Quality improvement issues identified by clinical audit.

INTRODUCTION: The Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health initiated a quality improvement (QI) programme on clozapine use in UK mental health services. METHODS: Clinical audits conducted in 2019 and 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-three participating NHS Trusts/healthcare organisations in 2019, and 61 in 2021, submitted treatment data for 6948 and 8155 patients, respectively. In both audits, high-dose and/or combined antipsychotic medications had been prescribed immediately before initiating clozapine in over a quarter of patients recently started on clozapine. In patients who were tobacco smokers and recently discharged from a smoke-free ward, the impact of the potential change in smoking status had been considered in the care plans of just under one-third in 2019 and just over a half in 2021. For community patients, their Summary Care Records (SCRs) included their clozapine prescriptions in 58% of cases in 2019 and 72% in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Three QI issues were identified. (1) Antipsychotic regimens with limited evidence for efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia were prescribed for over a quarter of cases before starting clozapine. Use of such strategies may delay clozapine treatment, potentially reducing the likelihood of a therapeutic response. (2) While anticipation of the consequences of a change in smoking status on plasma clozapine concentration following discharge from hospital showed improvement over time, even in 2021 it was not evident for nearly a half of relevant cases. (3) While inclusion of clozapine in the SCR also improved over time, even in 2021 it was missing for more than a quarter of community patients.

The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of clozapine for inpatients with severe borderline personality disorder (CALMED study): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Data from case series suggest that clozapine may benefit inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), but randomised trials have not been conducted. Methods: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 222 inpatients with severe BPD aged 18 or over, who had failed to respond to other antipsychotic medications. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to receive up to 400 mg of clozapine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomisation service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-harm, aggression, resource use and costs, side effects and adverse events. We used a modified intention to treat analysis (mITT) restricted to those who took one or more dose of trial medication, using a general linear model fitted at 6 months adjusted for baseline score, allocation group and site. Results: The study closed early due to poor recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 29 study participants, 24 (83%) were followed up at 6 months, of whom 21 (72%) were included in the mITT analysis. At 6 months, 11 (73%) participants assigned to clozapine and 6 (43%) of those assigned to placebo were still taking trial medication. Adjusted difference in mean total ZAN-BPD score at 6 months was -3.86 (95% Confidence Intervals = -10.04 to 2.32). There were 14 serious adverse events; 6 in the clozapine arm and 8 in the placebo arm of the trial. There was little difference in the cost of care between groups. Interpretation: We recruited insufficient participants to test the primary hypothesis. The study findings highlight problems in conducting placebo-controlled trials of clozapine and in using clozapine for people with BPD, outside specialist inpatient mental health units. Trial registration: ISRCTN18352058. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18352058.

Can the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotic preparations be increased in routine clinical practice and the benefits realised?

BACKGROUND: The use of continuing antipsychotic medication is an established evidence-based strategy for preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia, but medication adherence is known to be suboptimal. Covert non-adherence can be eliminated by the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations. We sought to (1) raise awareness among clinicians of the potential benefits of LAI antipsychotic formulations, (2) increase use of these formulations for the treatment of schizophrenia in routine clinical practice and thereby (3) reduce the number of relapses requiring hospitalisation in patients with schizophrenia under our care. METHOD: Educational initiatives, promotion of reflective practice and patient-specific reminders were used to prompt increased use of LAI antipsychotic medication for patients with schizophrenia. Data relating to the use of these medications and the number of acute admissions for schizophrenia spectrum disorders (F20-29, ICD-10) over time were extracted from existing clinical information systems. RESULTS: Over the 3-year time frame of our local initiative, the use of LAI antipsychotic preparations increased by 11%, the number of acute admissions for schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (F20 and F25) decreased by 26% and the number of acute bed days occupied by patients with these diagnoses decreased by 8%. The number of admissions for other psychosis diagnoses (F21-24 and F28-29) did not show the same pattern of improvement. CONCLUSION: In our health care organisation, raising clinicians' awareness of the evidence base relating to the potentially favourable benefit-risk balance for LAI antipsychotic medication compared with oral formulations resulted in more use of the former. There were accompanying reductions in acute admissions and occupied bed days for patients with schizophrenia.

Prescribing antipsychotic medication for adults with intellectual disability: shared responsibilities between mental health services and primary care.

AIMS AND METHOD: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health audit to assess the quality of requests from intellectual disability services to primary care for repeat prescriptions of antipsychotic medication. RESULTS: Forty-six National Health Service Trusts submitted treatment data on 977 adults with intellectual disability, receiving antipsychotic medication for more than a year, for whom prescribing responsibility had been transferred to primary care. Therapeutic effects had been monitored in the past 6 months in 80% of cases with a documented communication indicating which service was responsible for this and 72% of those with no such communication. The respective proportions were 69% and 42% for side-effect monitoring, and 79% and 30% for considering reducing/stopping antipsychotic medication. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Where continuing antipsychotic medication is prescribed in primary care for people with intellectual disability, lack of guidance from secondary care regarding responsibilities for monitoring its effectiveness may be associated with inadequate review.

Side-effect monitoring of continuing LAI antipsychotic medication in UK adult mental health services.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medications are used to optimise treatment outcomes in schizophrenia. Guaranteed medication delivery increases the responsibility of prescribers to monitor and manage adverse effects. METHODS: In the context of a quality improvement programme conducted by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health, a clinical audit addressed documented side-effect monitoring in patients prescribed continuing LAI antipsychotic medication under the care of United Kingdom adult mental health services. RESULTS: A total of 62 mental health services submitted data on 5169 patients prescribed LAI antipsychotic medication for more than a year. An assessment of side effects had been documented in the past year in 2304 (45%) cases. Post hoc analysis showed that extrapyramidal side effects were more likely to have been assessed and found to be present in those patients prescribed LAI haloperidol, flupentixol or zuclopenthixol. There was little other targeting of assessments to the known side effects profiles of individual LAI antipsychotic medications, but when dysphoria had been assessed it was most commonly found with LAI haloperidol treatment and when weight gain, sexual and prolactin-related side effects had been assessed, they were more often identified with LAI paliperidone. CONCLUSION: The data suggest a relatively low frequency of side-effect assessments, largely untargeted. This is likely to result in many adverse effects going unrecognised and unmanaged, thus failing to tackle their potential to confound mental state assessment and adversely affect physical health and adherence. Patients receiving LAI antipsychotic medication have regular contact with a healthcare professional who administers the medication, which provides an opportunity to potentially remedy this situation.

Switching antipsychotic medication to reduce sexual dysfunction in people with psychosis: the REMEDY RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is common among people who are prescribed antipsychotic medication for psychosis. Sexual dysfunction can impair quality of life and reduce treatment adherence. Switching antipsychotic medication may help, but the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether or not switching antipsychotic medication provides a clinically effective and cost-effective method to reduce sexual dysfunction in people with psychosis. DESIGN: A two-arm, researcher-blind, pilot randomised trial with a parallel qualitative study and an internal pilot phase. Study participants were randomised to enhanced standard care plus a switch of antipsychotic medication or enhanced standard care alone in a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was via an independent and remote web-based service using dynamic adaptive allocation, stratified by age, gender, Trust and relationship status. SETTING: NHS secondary care mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, have schizophrenia or related psychoses and experience sexual dysfunction associated with the use of antipsychotic medication. We recruited only people for whom reduction in medication dosage was ineffective or inappropriate. We excluded those who were acutely unwell, had had a change in antipsychotic medication in the last 6 weeks, were currently prescribed clozapine or whose sexual dysfunction was believed to be due to a coexisting physical or mental disorder. INTERVENTIONS: Switching to an equivalent dose of one of three antipsychotic medications that are considered to have a relatively low propensity for sexual side effects (i.e. quetiapine, aripiprazole or olanzapine). All participants were offered brief psychoeducation and support to discuss their sexual health and functioning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported sexual dysfunction, measured using the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. Secondary outcomes were researcher-rated sexual functioning, mental health, side effects of medication, health-related quality of life and service utilisation. Outcomes were assessed 3 and 6 months after randomisation. Qualitative data were collected from a purposive sample of patients and clinicians to explore barriers to recruitment. SAMPLE SIZE: Allowing for a 20% loss to follow-up, we needed to recruit 216 participants to have 90% power to detect a 3-point difference in total Arizona Sexual Experience Scale score (standard deviation 6.0 points) using a 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: The internal pilot was discontinued after 12 months because of low recruitment. Ninety-eight patients were referred to the study between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, of whom 10 were randomised. Eight (80%) participants were followed up 3 months later. Barriers to referral and recruitment included staff apprehensions about discussing side effects, reluctance among patients to switch medication and reticence of both staff and patients to talk about sex. LIMITATIONS: Insufficient numbers of participants were recruited to examine the study hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: It may not be possible to conduct a successful randomised trial of switching antipsychotic medication for sexual functioning in people with psychosis in the NHS at this time. FUTURE WORK: Research examining the acceptability and effectiveness of adjuvant phosphodiesterase inhibitors should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307891. 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. 24, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antipsychotic medications can improve the mental health of people with psychosis but may also cause side effects. These include sexual side effects, such as reduced desire for sex or less pleasure from having sex. One way to try to tackle this problem is to switch the medicine people take to one that is thought less likely to cause these problems. However, it is unclear if this helps, and switching medication could potentially harm mental health or cause new side effects. We conducted a study to compare the effect of switching with not switching the medication of people with psychosis experiencing sexual side effects. We collected information about sexual functioning, mental health, quality of life and use of services at the start of the study and 6 months later. We also interviewed nurses, doctors and patients to get their views about the study. We recruited 10 patients over a 12-month period and conducted interviews with 51 clinicians and four patients. Many clinicians said that they found it difficult to talk to their patients about sex. Some thought that these problems occurred rarely and that other side effects mattered more to patients. Many patients were concerned about switching their medication, especially when it had improved their mental health. Others felt that these side effects were not very important, and some were not prepared to take part in a trial that could delay a change being made to their medication. We did not collect enough information to be able to find out if switching medication helps people who experience sexual side effects of antipsychotic drugs. It is important that clinicians ask about sexual side effects of antipsychotic medication and that further efforts are made to find ways to help patients who experience them.

The physical health and side-effect monitoring of patients prescribed clozapine: data from a clinical audit conducted in UK mental health services.

BACKGROUND: In addition to mandatory haematological monitoring, treatment guidelines recommend routine monitoring of adverse effects and physical health in patients prescribed clozapine. METHODS: NHS trusts/healthcare organisations participated in a clinical audit in the context of a UK quality improvement programme addressing clozapine-prescribing practice. RESULTS: Data relating to 6948 adult patients prescribed clozapine were submitted by 63 NHS trusts/healthcare organisations. Of 481 patients treated with clozapine for up to 18 weeks, there was documented pretreatment screening of blood pressure, heart rate and ECG in at least 90%, and body weight, plasma lipids, plasma glucose/glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and physical examination in approximately 80%. During the first 2 weeks of clozapine treatment there was documented daily measurement of both heart rate and blood pressure in 82% and body temperature in 77%. In a subsample of 411 patients, of the 72% who had weekly side-effect assessments documented in the first month of treatment, a structured assessment tool had been used in 29%. Treatment monitoring up to 18 weeks included an ECG in 90%, C-reactive protein (CRP) or creatine kinase in 42%, and troponin or B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in 29%. In the 5908 patients prescribed clozapine for at least 1 year, blood pressure and body weight/body mass index were documented in at least 80%, plasma lipids in 78% and plasma glucose in 73%, with an ECG in 55%. Two-thirds were prescribed medication to manage side effects of clozapine and one third of those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were prescribed a second antipsychotic medication. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that for most patients treated with clozapine in UK mental health services, physical health screening and side-effect monitoring follow recommended practice, but there was limited use of structured side-effect assessment tools. Monitoring for clozapine-induced myocarditis during the early risk period using markers of inflammation such as CRP, and cardiac damage such as troponin and BNP, was less consistent. This may partly reflect the variation in guideline recommendations for monitoring for myocarditis and partly the selected use of such tests when prompted by cardiac symptoms. The relatively common coprescription of medications for the majority of people on longer-term clozapine treatment may well further increase side-effect burden and physical health risks, reinforcing the need for continuing systematic monitoring.

Prescribing for moderate or severe unipolar depression in patients under the long-term care of UK adult mental health services.

BACKGROUND: A quality improvement programme addressing prescribing practice for depression was initiated by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health. METHODS: A baseline clinical audit against evidence-based practice standards was conducted in UK adult mental health services. RESULTS: A total of 55 mental health services submitted data for 2082 patients, under the care of a community psychiatric team (CMHT) for at least a year, with a diagnosis of moderate or severe unipolar depression, 54% of whom had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were prescribed for 35% of the patients, other newer generation antidepressants for 60%, tricyclic antidepressants for 6% and monoamine oxidase inhibitors for <1%. The most commonly prescribed individual antidepressants were mirtazapine (33%, usually in combination with another antidepressant), venlafaxine (25%) and sertraline (21%). Patients with severe depression were more likely (p < 0.001) to be co-prescribed an antipsychotic medication, lithium, or to have received electroconvulsive therapy. There was a documented clinical review in the last year in 85%, with a symptom rating scale used in 11%. A documented comprehensive treatment history was accessible for 50% of those prescribed antidepressant medication. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate or severe depression remaining under the care of a CMHT for longer than a year are clinically complex. The failure to achieve a level of wellness allowing discharge from mental health services may be partly related to the finding that not all patients had the benefit of a systematic approach to clinical assessment and sequential testing of available evidence-based pharmacological interventions.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: Updated recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology.

These updated guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology replace the original version published in 2011. They address the scope and targets of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia. A consensus meeting was held in 2017, involving experts in schizophrenia and its treatment. They were asked to review key areas and consider the strength of the evidence on the risk-benefit balance of pharmacological interventions and the clinical implications, with an emphasis on meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials where available, plus updates on current clinical practice. The guidelines cover the pharmacological management and treatment of schizophrenia across the various stages of the illness, including first-episode, relapse prevention, and illness that has proved refractory to standard treatment. It is hoped that the practice recommendations presented will support clinical decision making for practitioners, serve as a source of information for patients and carers, and inform quality improvement.

The pharmacological management of acute behavioural disturbance: Data from a clinical audit conducted in UK mental health services.

BACKGROUND: A quality improvement programme addressing prescribing practice for acutely disturbed behaviour was initiated by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health. METHOD: This study analysed data from a baseline clinical audit conducted in inpatient mental health services in member trusts. RESULTS: Fifty-eight mental health services submitted data on 2172 episodes of acutely disturbed behaviour. A benzodiazepine alone was administered in 60% of the 1091 episodes where oral medication only was used and in 39% of the 1081 episodes where parenteral medication (rapid tranquillisation) was used. Haloperidol was combined with lorazepam in 22% of rapid tranquillisation episodes and with promethazine in 3%. Physical violence towards others was strongly associated with receiving rapid tranquillisation in men (odds ratio 1.74, 1.25-2.44; p<0.001) as was actual or attempted self-harm in women (odds ratio 1.87, 1.19-2.94; p=0.007). Where physical violence towards others was exhibited, a benzodiazepine and antipsychotic was more likely to be prescribed than a benzodiazepine alone (odds ratio 1.39, 1.00-1.92; p=0.05). The data suggested that 25% of patients were at least 'extremely or continuously active' in the hour after rapid tranquillisation was administered. CONCLUSION: The current management of acutely disturbed behaviour with parenteral medication may fail to achieve a calming effect in up to a quarter of episodes. The most common rapid tranquillisation combination used was lorazepam and haloperidol, for which the randomised controlled trial evidence is very limited. Rapid tranquillisation prescribing practice was not wholly consistent with the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline, which recommends intramuscular lorazepam on its own or intramuscular haloperidol combined with intramuscular promethazine. Clinical factors prompting the use of rapid tranquillisation rather than oral medication may differ between the genders.

Physical health monitoring after rapid tranquillisation: clinical practice in UK mental health services.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the quality of physical health monitoring following rapid tranquillisation (RT) for acute behavioural disturbance in UK mental health services. METHODS: The Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health (POMH-UK) initiated an audit-based quality improvement programme addressing the pharmacological treatment of acute behavioural disturbance in mental health services in the UK. RESULTS: Data relating to a total of 2454 episodes of RT were submitted by 66 mental health services. Post-RT physical health monitoring did not reach the minimum recommended level in 1933 (79%) episodes. Patients were more likely to be monitored (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.39-2.29, p < 0.001) if there was actual or threatened self-harm, and less likely to be monitored if the episode occurred in the evening (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.0, p < 0.001) or overnight (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.75, p < 0.001). Risk factors such as recent substance use, RT resulting in the patient falling asleep, or receiving high-dose antipsychotic medication on the day of the episode, did not predict whether or not the minimum recommended level of post-RT monitoring was documented. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum recommended level of physical health monitoring was reported for only one in five RT episodes. The findings also suggest a lack of targeting of at-risk patients for post-RT monitoring. Possible explanations are that clinicians consider such monitoring too demanding to implement in routine clinical practice or not appropriate in every clinical situation. For example, physical health measures requiring direct contact with a patient may be difficult to undertake, or counter-productive, if RT has failed. These findings prompt speculation that post-RT monitoring practice would be improved by the implementation of guidance that integrated and refined the currently separate systems for undertaking and recording physical health observations post-RT, determining nursing observation schedules and detecting acute deterioration in physical health. The effectiveness and clinical utility of such an approach would be worth testing.

Amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for treatment-refractory schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A second antipsychotic is commonly added to clozapine to treat refractory schizophrenia, notwithstanding the limited evidence to support such practice. METHODS: The efficacy and adverse effects of this pharmacological strategy were examined in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week randomized trial of clozapine augmentation with amisulpride, involving 68 adults with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and persistent symptoms despite a predefined trial of clozapine. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the amisulpride and placebo groups on the primary outcome measure (clinical response defined as a 20% reduction in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score) or other mental state measures. However, the trial under recruited and was therefore underpowered to detect differences in the primary outcome, meaning that acceptance of the null hypothesis carries an increased risk of type II error. The findings suggested that amisulpride-treated participants were more likely to fulfil the clinical response criterion, odds ratio 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.40-3.42) and have a greater reduction in negative symptoms, but these numerical differences were not statistically significant and only evident at 12 weeks. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the amisulpride group had at least one adverse event compared with the control group (p = 0.014), and these were more likely to be cardiac symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for more than 6 weeks may be required for an adequate trial of clozapine augmentation with amisulpride. The greater side-effect burden associated with this treatment strategy highlights the need for safety and tolerability monitoring, including vigilance for indicators of cardiac abnormalities, when it is used in either a clinical or research setting.

Joint BAP NAPICU evidence-based consensus guidelines for the clinical management of acute disturbance: De-escalation and rapid tranquillisation.

The British Association for Psychopharmacology and the National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units developed this joint evidence-based consensus guideline for the clinical management of acute disturbance. It includes recommendations for clinical practice and an algorithm to guide treatment by healthcare professionals with various options outlined according to their route of administration and category of evidence. Fundamental overarching principles are included and highlight the importance of treating the underlying disorder. There is a focus on three key interventions: de-escalation, pharmacological interventions pre-rapid tranquillisation and rapid tranquillisation (intramuscular and intravenous). Most of the evidence reviewed relates to emergency psychiatric care or acute psychiatric adult inpatient care, although we also sought evidence relevant to other common clinical settings including the general acute hospital and forensic psychiatry. We conclude that the variety of options available for the management of acute disturbance goes beyond the standard choices of lorazepam, haloperidol and promethazine and includes oral-inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, as well as a number of oral antipsychotics in addition to parenteral options of intramuscular aripiprazole, intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular olanzapine. Intravenous options, for settings where resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available to manage medical emergencies, are also included.

Lamotrigine for people with borderline personality disorder: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: No drug treatments are currently licensed for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite this, people with this condition are frequently prescribed psychotropic medications and often with considerable polypharmacy. Preliminary studies have indicated that mood stabilisers may be of benefit to people with BPD. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine for people with BPD. DESIGN: A two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled individually randomised trial of lamotrigine versus placebo. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote web-based service using permuted blocks and stratified by study centre, the severity of personality disorder and the extent of hypomanic symptoms. SETTING: Secondary care NHS mental health services in six centres in England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, meet diagnostic criteria for BPD and provide written informed consent. We excluded people with coexisting psychosis or bipolar affective disorder, those already taking a mood stabiliser, those who spoke insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who were pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 200 mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo. Women taking combined oral contraceptives were prescribed up to 400 mg of trial medication per day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 12, 24 and 52 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was the total score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment and adverse events. Higher scores on all measures indicate poorer outcomes. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and October 2015 we randomised 276 participants, of whom 195 (70.6%) were followed up 52 weeks later. At 52 weeks, 49 (36%) of those participants prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. At 52 weeks, the mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 [standard deviation (SD) 6.6] among those participants randomised to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD 7.7) among those participants randomised to placebo (adjusted mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.0; p = 0.91). No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were seen at any time. Adjusted costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. LIMITATIONS: Levels of adherence in this pragmatic trial were low, but greater adherence was not associated with better mental health. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lamotrigine to the usual care of people with BPD was not found to be clinically effective or provide a cost-effective use of resources. FUTURE WORK: Future research into the treatment of BPD should focus on improving the evidence base for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments to help policy-makers make better decisions about investing in specialist treatment services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90916365. FUNDING: Funding for this trial was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Imperial Biomedical Research Centre Facility, which is funded by NIHR, also provided support that has contributed to the research results reported within this paper. Part of Richard Morriss' salary during the project was paid by NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands.

A UK clinical audit addressing the quality of prescribing of sodium valproate for bipolar disorder in women of childbearing age.

OBJECTIVES: To review prescribing practice concerning valproate, an established human teratogen, for the management of bipolar disorder in women of childbearing age. DESIGN: The Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health conducted a baseline clinical audit in the UK, as part of a quality improvement programme. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred and forty-eight clinical teams from 55 mental health Trusts submitted retrospective treatment data relating to patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. RESULTS: Of the audit sample of 6705 patients, 3854 were 50 years of age or younger. Valproate was prescribed for 24% of women and 43% men in this age group, and the mean dose of valproate was lower in women (1196 mg) than in men (1391 mg). For only half of such women was there documented evidence that information had been provided on the risks for the unborn child and the need for adequate contraception. Valproate was more often used in men to treat mania and aggression, while the most common treatment targets in women were hypomania and relapse prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Despite explicit recommendations in national treatment guidelines and published safety alerts and warnings regarding the use of valproate in women of childbearing age, current prescribing of this medication to such women in the context of the treatment of bipolar disorder falls short of best practice, particularly with regard to provision of information regarding the risks associated with exposure to valproate during pregnancy. While women younger than 50 years of age were less likely to be prescribed valproate than men in the same age group, and at a lower dosage, it is unclear to what extent this reflects clinicians' concerns about teratogenicity or is driven by perceptions of the indication for valproate, and the dosage required, for the treatment of different phases of the disorder in men and women.

The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Lamotrigine in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 and November 2016, the authors recruited 276 people age 18 or over who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Individuals with coexisting bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, and women at risk of pregnancy were excluded. A web-based randomization service was used to allocate participants randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an inert placebo or up to 400 mg/day of lamotrigine. The primary outcome measure was score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those in the lamotrigine group and 58 (42%) of those in the placebo group were taking study medication. The mean ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD=6.6) among those in the lamotrigine group and 11.5 (SD=7.7) among those in the placebo group (adjusted difference in means=0.1, 95% CI=-1.8, 2.0). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Amisulpride augmentation in clozapine-unresponsive schizophrenia (AMICUS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: When treatment-refractory schizophrenia shows an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine, clinicians commonly add a second antipsychotic, despite the lack of robust evidence to justify this practice. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of the study were to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of clozapine medication with a second antipsychotic, amisulpride, for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. DESIGN: The study was a multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with follow-up at 12 weeks. SETTINGS: The study was set in NHS multidisciplinary teams in adult psychiatry. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were people aged 18-65 years with treatment-resistant schizophrenia unresponsive, at a criterion level of persistent symptom severity and impaired social function, to an adequate trial of clozapine monotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions comprised clozapine augmentation over 12 weeks with amisulpride or placebo. Participants received 400 mg of amisulpride or two matching placebo capsules for the first 4 weeks, after which there was a clinical option to titrate the dosage of amisulpride up to 800 mg or four matching placebo capsules for the remaining 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of 'responders', using a criterion response threshold of a 20% reduction in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. RESULTS: A total of 68 participants were randomised. Compared with the participants assigned to placebo, those receiving amisulpride had a greater chance of being a responder by the 12-week follow-up (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 3.42) and a greater improvement in negative symptoms, although neither finding had been present at 6-week follow-up and neither was statistically significant. Amisulpride was associated with a greater side effect burden, including cardiac side effects. Economic analyses indicated that amisulpride augmentation has the potential to be cost-effective in the short term [net saving of between £329 and £2011; no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and possibly in the longer term. LIMITATIONS: The trial under-recruited and, therefore, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. The economic analyses indicated high uncertainty because of the short duration and relatively small number of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The risk-benefit of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia that has shown an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine monotherapy is worthy of further investigation in larger studies. The size and extent of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination may partly reflect the comprehensive assessment of side effects in this study. The design of future trials of such a treatment strategy should take into account that a clinical response may be not be evident within the 4- to 6-week follow-up period usually considered adequate in studies of antipsychotic treatment of acute psychotic episodes. Economic evaluation indicated the need for larger, longer-term studies to address uncertainty about the extent of savings because of amisulpride and impact on QALYs. The extent and nature of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination has implications for the nature and frequency of safety and tolerability monitoring of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic in both clinical and research settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2010-018963-40 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68824876. 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. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.