Stratification and prediction of remission in first-episode psychosis patients : the OPTiMiSE cohort study

Early response to first-line antipsychotic treatments is strongly associated with positive long-term symptomatic and functional outcome in psychosis. Unfortunately, attempts to identify reliable predictors of treatment response in first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients have not yet been successful. One reason for this could be that FEP patients are highly heterogeneous in terms of symptom expression and underlying disease biological mechanisms, thereby impeding the identification of one-size-fits-all predictors of treatment response. We have used a clustering approach to stratify 325 FEP patients into four clinical subtypes, termed C1A, C1B, C2A and C2B, based on their symptoms assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scale. Compared to C1B, C2A and C2B patients, those from the C1A subtype exhibited the most severe symptoms and were the most at risk of being non-remitters when treated with the second-generation antipsychotic drug amisulpride. Before treatment, C1A patients exhibited higher serum levels of several pro-inflammatory cytokines and inflammation-associated biomarkers therefore validating our stratification approach on external biological measures. Most importantly, in the C1A subtype, but not others, lower serum levels of interleukin (IL)-15, higher serum levels of C-X-C motif chemokine 12 (CXCL12), previous exposure to cytomegalovirus (CMV), use of recreational drugs and being younger were all associated with higher odds of being non-remitters 4 weeks after treatment. The predictive value of this model was good (mean area under the curve (AUC) = 0.73 ± 0.10), and its specificity and sensitivity were 45 ± 0.09% and 83 ± 0.03%, respectively. Further validation and replication of these results in clinical trials would pave the way for the development of a blood-based assisted clinical decision support system in psychosis

Correction: Stratification and prediction of remission in first-episode psychosis patients: the OPTiMiSE cohort study (vol 9, 20, 2019) : Stratification and prediction of remission in first-episode psychosis patients: the OPTiMiSE cohort study (Translational Psychiatry, (2019), 9, 1, (20), 10.1038/s41398-018-0366-5)

The original Article did not feature the list of collaborators. This has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of this Article

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: further development and evaluation of the participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial. METHODS: This study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility. RESULTS: Application of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure. CONCLUSION: The PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: further development and evaluation of the participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure

Abstract Background Informed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial. Methods This study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility. Results Application of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure. Conclusion The PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials