Prostate cancer is a common malignancy with rising incidence in Western countries such as the United Kingdom. In localised disease there are a variety of curative treatment modalities. Patients can be referred for surgery, or for a combination of hormonal therapies and radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy). Each treatment option comes with side effects and in the case of radiotherapy one potential complication is bowel toxicity from radiation exposure. New technologies are being developed to try and mitigate the side effects and long term morbidity of this treatment, and to expand access to radiotherapy for patients who may previously have been excluded (i.e those with inflammatory bowel disease). Rectal Spacers are absorbable polyethylene glycol hydrogels injected into the perirectal space. These position the anterior rectal wall away from the prostate, subsequently minimising radiation dose to the rectum. Rectal Spacers have been introduced to National Healthcare Service (NHS) practice as part of the Innovation and Technology Payment (ITP) programme, however, their use is now under review.

In this editorial we conduct a narrative review of some of the available evidence for Rectal Spacers, discuss their utilization within the NHS and the barriers to their wider use. We also explore preliminary dosimetry and quality of life data for use of Rectal Spacers in our centre where we have been part of the NHS ITP programme. Dosimetry data and Quality of life questionnaires were gathered from 22 treated patients and 11 matched controls. This indicated lower radiation doses to the prostate in those treated with Rectal Spacers.

Rectal Spacers are an effective method to reduce radiation dose to the prostate in men treated for localised prostate cancer, however, their use remains under review in the NHS and there are a variety of barriers to upscaling their use.

Despite the widespread use of psychotropic medications in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), there is limited evidence to suggest that psychotropic medications including mood stabilisers are effective in individuals with ASD.

To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of mood stabilisers in people with ASD.

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, DARE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. In addition, we hand-searched 12 relevant journals. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Jadad scores to assess the quality of included RCTs. We carried out a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

We included eight RCTs (four on valproate, two on levetiracetam, and one each on lamotrigine and topiramate) that included a total of 310 people with ASD, primarily children. Outcomes were based on core and associated ASD symptoms including irritability and aggression but not bipolar disorder. Only two small studies (25%) from the same group showed definite superiority over placebo and one over psychoeducation alone. Meta-analysis of pooled data on the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-irritability, Clinical Global Impression Scale-improvement, and Overt Aggression Scale (OAS)/OAS-modified did not show any significant inter-group difference. The rates of adverse effects did not show any significant inter-group difference.

Given the methodological flaws in the included studies and the contradictory findings, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of mood stabilisers to treat either ASD core symptoms or associated behaviours. Robust large-scale RCTs are needed in the future to address this issue.

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021255467 on 18 May 2021.

Although widely used, the current evidence for the efficacy of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is limited and conflicting.

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of these medications in people with ASD.

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, DARE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we hand-searched 11 relevant journals. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score to assess the quality of each included study. We carried out a meta-analysis using a random effects model.

We included 15 randomised controlled trials (13 on antidepressants and two on anti-anxiety medications) for a total of 958 people with ASD. Data showed contradictory findings among the studies, with larger studies mostly showing a non-significant difference in outcomes between the treatment and the placebo groups. Meta-analysis of pooled Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale data from nine studies (60%) did not show any statistically significant inter-group difference on either of the outcome measures. The adverse effects reported were mild and, in most studies, their rates did not show any significant inter-group difference.

Given the methodological flaws in the most included studies and contradictory findings, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of either antidepressant or anti-anxiety medications to treat either ASD core symptoms or associated behaviours. Robust, large-scale, randomised controlled trials are needed to address this issue.

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.

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.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions are expected to affect the mental health of the population, especially people with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder, because of a variety of biological and psychosocial reasons.

This study aimed to estimate if COVID-19 restrictions are associated with a change in number of total consultations carried out by psychiatrists and prescription of psychotropic medication in people with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder, within a community intellectual disability service.

A quantitative observational study was conducted, involving retrospective and prospective data collection before and during lockdown. Data was collected on a spreadsheet and emailed to all psychiatrists working within the Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust-wide community intellectual disability service. Variables included total consultations, medication interventions, types of medications used, multidisciplinary team input and clinical reasons for medication interventions. Data was analysed separately for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and adult intellectual disability teams, and for the whole service.

During the lockdown period, total consultations in the community intellectual disability service increased by 19 per week and medication interventions increased by two per week. Multidisciplinary team input increased in CAMHS from 0.17 to 0.71 per week and in adult intellectual disability from 5.7 to 6.5 per week. Hypnotics and benzodiazepines were the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medications during the lockdown period.

COVID-19-related lockdown resulted in an increase in medication interventions, total consultations and involvement of multidisciplinary teams to manage mental health and behavioural issues in people with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorder.

The approach taken to support individuals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic needs to take into account the requirements of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism, who represent a major vulnerable group, with higher rates of co-occurring health conditions and a greater risk of dying prematurely. To date, little evidence on COVID-related concerns have been produced and no report has provided structured feedback from the point of view of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism or of their family/carers.

To provide systemised evidence-based information of the priority concerns for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senior representatives of major UK-based professional and service-user representative organisations with a stake in the care of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism were contacted to provide a list of concerns across three domains: ‘mental health and challenging behaviour’, ‘physical health and epilepsy’ and ‘social circumstances and support’. The feedback was developed into statements on frequently reported priorities. These statements were then rated independently by expert clinicians. A video-conference meeting to reconcile outliers and to generate a consensus statement list was held.

Thirty-two organisations were contacted, of which 26 (81%) replied. From the respondent's data, 30 draft consensus statements were generated. Following expert clinician review, there was initially strong consensus for seven statements (23%), increasing to 27 statements (90%) following video conferencing.

These recommendations highlight the expectations of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism in the current pandemic. This could support policymakers and professionals’ deliver and evidence person-centred care.

Long-term admission trends in a large specialist National Health Service (NHS) hospital were examined over a 3-year period. These were compared with three earlier 3-year periods. the medical records were examined for admission numbers, source of admissions, length of stay, legal status, reason for admission and readmission rate.

The percentage of patients admitted from home decreased over time, whereas the admissions from group homes increased threefold. Long-stay admissions decreased in the second and third periods followed by an increase in the fourth period. There was a progressive increase in formal admissions and a decrease in informal ones. There was an increase in admissions of people with psychiatric illness and a decrease in admissions because of social difficulties. the percentage of first admissions gradually increased and the percentages of readmissions gradually decreased.

People with intellectual disability are more likely to be admitted for psychiatric reasons and to be detained under the Mental Health Act than in the 1970s. There should be a much greater interaction between hospital and community services to facilitate shorter stays and early discharge. Out-of-area placements need to be taken account of while commissioning for the total need in a geographical area.

The Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales (HoNOS) have been developed to measure outcomes in people with mental health problems.

Frequent impaired social functioning, problems with communication and associated physical conditions meant that a bespoke instrument was needed for people with learning disabilities. We describe the development of the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales for People with Learning Disabilities (HoNOS–LD).

HoNOS-LD was piloted at 26 sites. Two raters, at two points in time, rated 372 subjects. Analysis determined acceptability, ease of use, interrater reliability, sensitivity to change and reliability with the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC).

The resulting 18-item instrument demonstrated good reliability and validity characteristics and is generally acceptable to clinicians.

HoNOS-LD is an appropriate instrument for measuring outcome in people with learning disabilities with additional mental health needs.