SummaryBackgroundLittle evidence is available for head-to-head comparisons of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions in psychosis. We aimed to establish whether a randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus antipsychotic drugs versus a combination of both would be feasible in people with psychosis.MethodsWe did a single-site, single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial in people with psychosis who used services in National Health Service trusts across Greater Manchester, UK. Eligible participants were aged 16 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service; were in contact with mental health services, under the care of a consultant psychiatrist; scored at least 4 on delusions or hallucinations items, or at least 5 on suspiciousness, persecution, or grandiosity items on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); had capacity to consent; and were help-seeking. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, CBT, or antipsychotics plus CBT. Randomisation was done via a secure web-based randomisation system (Sealed Envelope), with randomised permuted blocks of 4 and 6, stratified by gender and first episode status. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant. Participants were followed up for 1 year. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data about recruitment, retention, and acceptability), and the primary efficacy outcome was the PANSS total score (assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks). Non-neurological side-effects were assessed systemically with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses were done on an as-treated basis. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN06022197.FindingsOf 138 patients referred to the study, 75 were recruited and randomly assigned—26 to CBT, 24 to antipsychotics, and 25 to antipsychotics plus CBT. Attrition was low, and retention high, with only four withdrawals across all groups. 40 (78%) of 51 participants allocated to CBT attended six or more sessions. Of the 49 participants randomised to antipsychotics, 11 (22%) were not prescribed a regular antipsychotic. Median duration of total antipsychotic treatment was 44·5 weeks (IQR 26–51). PANSS total score was significantly reduced in the combined intervention group compared with the CBT group (–5·65 [95% CI −10·37 to −0·93]; p=0·019). PANSS total scores did not differ significantly between the combined group and the antipsychotics group (–4·52 [95% CI −9·30 to 0·26]; p=0·064) or between the antipsychotics and CBT groups (–1·13 [95% CI −5·81 to 3·55]; p=0·637). Significantly fewer side-effects, as measured with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale, were noted in the CBT group than in ...

BackgroundThe Individualised Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) questionnaire is a published muscle disease specific measure of QoL that has been validated using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a United Kingdom population of adults with muscle disease. If INQoL is to be used in other countries it needs to be linguistically and culturally validated for those countries. It may be important to understand any cultural differences in how patients rate their QoL when applying QoL measures in multi-national clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a postal survey of QoL issues in US adults with muscle disease using an agreed translation, from UK to US English, of the same questionnaire as was used in the original construction of INQoL. This questionnaire included an opportunity for free text comments on any aspects of QoL that might not have been covered by the questionnaire. We examined the responses using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The frequency of the responses in US versus UK populations was compared using appropriate correlation tests and Rasch analysis. A phenomenological approach was used to guide the qualitative analysis and facilitate the exploration of patients' perceptions and experiences.ResultsThe US survey received 333 responses which were compared with 251 UK survey responses.We found that INQoL domains covered all the issues raised by US subjects with no additional domains required. The experiences of those with muscle disease were remarkably similar in the US and UK but there were differences related to the impact of muscle disease on relationships and on employment which was greater for those living in the United States. The greater impact on employment was associated with a higher importance rating given to employment in the US. This may reflect the lower level of financial support for those who are unemployed, and the loss of employment related health benefits.ConclusionsINQoL is appropriate for use in US population but there may be differences in the importance that US subject attach to certain aspects of QoL that could be the basis for further study.If these differences are confirmed then this may have implications for the interpretation of QoL outcomes in multi-national trials.

No abstract

Commentary C oronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is affecting every aspect of medical care. Much has been written about overwhelmed hospital settings, the financial devastation to outpatient treatment centers, and an impending pandemic of mental illness that the existing underfunded and fragmented mental health system would not be prepared to weather. Although COVID-19 has undeniably affected the practice of emergency psychiatry, its impact has been surprising and complex. In this article, I describe the effects COVID-19 has had on our psychiatric emergency service, and how the pandemic has affected me personally.