Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services improve outcomes for young people, but approximately 30% disengage.

To test whether a new motivational engagement intervention would prolong engagement and whether it was cost-effective.

We conducted a multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 20 EIP teams at five UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Teams were randomised using permuted blocks stratified by NHS trust. Participants were all young people (aged 14–35 years) presenting with a first episode of psychosis between May 2019 and July 2020 (N = 1027). We compared the novel Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention plus standardised EIP (sEIP) with sEIP alone. The primary outcome was time to disengagement over 12–26 months. Economic outcomes were mental health costs, societal costs and socio-occupational outcomes over 12 months. Assessors were masked to treatment allocation for primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. The trial was registered at ISRCTN51629746.

Disengagement was low at 15.9% overall in standardised stand-alone services. The adjusted hazard ratio for EYE-2 + sEIP (n = 652) versus sEIP alone (n = 375) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.76–1.49; P = 0.713). The health economic evaluation indicated lower mental healthcare costs linked to reductions in unplanned mental healthcare with no compromise of clinical outcomes, as well as some evidence for lower societal costs and more days in education, training, employment and stable accommodation in the EYE-2 group.

We found no evidence that EYE-2 increased time to disengagement, but there was some evidence for its cost-effectiveness. This is the largest study to date reporting positive engagement, health and cost outcomes in a total EIP population sample. Limitations included high loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and low completion of societal and socio-occupational data. COVID-19 affected fidelity and implementation. Future engagement research should target engagement to those in greatest need, including in-patients and those with socio-occupational goals.

This national pre-pandemic survey compared demand and capacity of adult community eating disorder services (ACEDS) with NHS England (NHSE) commissioning guidance.

Thirteen services in England and Scotland responded (covering 10.7 million population). Between 2016–2017 and 2019–2020 mean referral rates increased by 18.8%, from 378 to 449/million population. Only 3.7% of referrals were from child and adolescent eating disorder services (CEDS-CYP), but 46% of patients were aged 18–25 and 54% were aged >25. Most ACEDS had waiting lists and rationed access. Many could not provide full medical monitoring, adapt treatment for comorbidities, offer assertive outreach or provide seamless transitions. For patient volume, the ACEDS workforce budget was 15%, compared with the NHSE workforce calculator recommendations for CEDS-CYP. Parity required £7 million investment/million population for the ACEDS.

This study highlights the severe pressure in ACEDS, which has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. Substantial investment is required to ensure NHS ACEDS meet national guidance, offer evidence-based treatment, reduce risk and preventable deaths, and achieve parity with CEDS-CYP.

Over the last 20 years disasters have increasingly involved children, and pediatric disaster medicine research is growing. However, this research is largely reactive, has not been categorized in terms of the disaster cycle, and the quality of the research is variable. To understand the gaps in current literature and highlight areas for future research, we conducted a scoping review of pediatric disaster medicine literature. This work will help create recommendations for future pediatric disaster medicine research.

Using a published framework for scoping reviews, we worked with a medical librarian and a multi-institutional team to define the research question, develop eligibility criteria, and to identify a search strategy. We conducted a comprehensive Medline search from 2001-2022, which was distributed to nine reviewers. Each article was independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.

Inclusion criteria included articles published in English, related to all stages of the disaster cycle, and disaster education, focused on or included pediatric populations; published in academic, peer-reviewed journals, and policies from professional societies.

967 pediatric disaster medicine articles were imported for screening and 35 duplicates were removed. 932 articles were screened for relevance and 109 were excluded. In 2000, three articles met inclusion criteria and 66 in 2021. We noticed reactive spikes in the number of articles after major disasters. Most articles focused on preparedness and response, with only a few articles on recovery, mitigation, and prevention. Methodology used for most studies was either qualitative or retrospective. Most were single site studies and there were < 10 meta-analyses over the 20 years.

This scoping review describes the trends in and quality of existing pediatric disaster medicine literature. By identifying the gaps in this body of literature, we can better prioritize future research.

Experience of crisis care may vary across different care models.

To explore the experience of care in standard care and ‘open dialogue’ (a peer-supported community service focused on open dialogue and involving social networks for adults with a recent mental health crisis) 3 months after a crisis.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 participants (6 received open dialogue; 5 received treatment as usual (TAU)) in a feasibility study of open dialogue and analysed the data using a three-step inductive thematic analysis to identify themes that (a) were frequently endorsed and (b) represented the experiences of all participants.

Four themes emerged: (a) feeling able to rely on and access mental health services; (b) supportive and understanding family and friends; (c) having a choice and a voice; and (d) confusion and making sense of experiences. Generally, there was a divergence in experience across the two care models. Open dialogue participants often felt able to rely on and access services and involve their family and friends in their care. TAU participants described a need to rely on services and difficulty when it was not met, needing family and friends for support and wanting them to be more involved in their care. Some participants across both care models experienced confusion after a crisis and described benefits of sense-making.

Understanding crisis care experiences across different care models can inform service development in crisis and continuing mental healthcare services.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. Drug interactions (DDIs) are among the most common causes of ADRs, and estimates have cited that up to 22% of patients take interacting medications. DDIs are often due to the propensity for agents to induce or inhibit enzymes responsible for the metabolism of concomitantly administered drugs. However, this phenomenon is further complicated by genetic variants of such enzymes. The aim of this study is to quantify and describe potential drug-drug, drug-gene, and drug-drug-gene interactions in a community-based patient population.

A regional pharmacy with retail outlets in Arkansas provided deidentified prescription data from March 2020 for 4761 individuals. Drug-drug and drug-drug-gene interactions were assessed utilizing the logic incorporated into GenMedPro, a commercially available digital gene-drug interaction software program that incorporates variants of 9 pharmacokinetic (PK) and 2 pharmacodynamic (PD) genes to evaluate DDIs and drug-gene interactions. The data were first assessed for composite drug-drug interaction risk, and each individual was stratified to a risk category using the logic incorporated in GenMedPro. To calculate the frequency of potential drug-gene interactions, genotypes were imputed and allocated to the cohort according to each gene’s frequency in the general population. Potential genotypes were randomly allocated to the population 100 times in a Monte Carlo simulation. Potential drug-drug, gene-drug, or gene-drug-drug interaction risk was characterized as minor, moderate, or major.

Based on prescription data only, the probability of a DDI of any impact (mild, moderate, or major) was 26% [95% CI: 0.248-0.272] in the population. This probability increased to 49.6% [95% CI: 0.484-0.507] when simulated genetic polymorphisms were additionally assessed. When assessing only major impact interactions, there was a 7.8% [95% CI: 0.070-0.085] probability of drug-drug interactions and 10.1% [95% CI: 0.095-0.108] probability with the addition of genetic contributions. The probability of drug-drug-gene interactions of any impact was correlated with the number of prescribed medications, with an approximate probability of 77%, 85%, and 94% in patients prescribed 5, 6, or 7+ medications, respectively. When stratified by specific drug class, antidepressants (19.5%), antiemetics (21.4%), analgesics (16%), antipsychotics (15.6%), and antiparasitics (49.7%) had the highest probability of major drug-drug-gene interaction.

In a community-based population of outpatients, the probability of drug-drug interaction risk increases when genetic polymorphisms are attributed to the population. These data suggest that pharmacogenetic testing may be useful in predicting drug interactions, drug-gene interactions, and severity of interactions when proactively evaluating patient medication profiles.

Genomind, Inc.

Patients presenting to hospital with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), based on clinical symptoms, are routinely placed in a cohort together until polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results are available. This procedure leads to delays in transfers to definitive areas and high nosocomial transmission rates. FebriDx is a finger-prick point-of-care test (PoCT) that detects an antiviral host response and has a high negative predictive value for COVID-19. We sought to determine the clinical impact of using FebriDx for COVID-19 triage in the emergency department (ED).

We undertook a retrospective observational study evaluating the real-world clinical impact of FebriDx as part of an ED COVID-19 triage algorithm.

Emergency department of a university teaching hospital.

Patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, placed in a cohort in a ‘high-risk’ area, were tested using FebriDx. Patients without a detectable antiviral host response were then moved to a lower-risk area.

Between September 22, 2020, and January 7, 2021, 1,321 patients were tested using FebriDx, and 1,104 (84%) did not have a detectable antiviral host response. Among 1,104 patients, 865 (78%) were moved to a lower-risk area within the ED. The median times spent in a high-risk area were 52 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 34–92) for FebriDx-negative patients and 203 minutes (IQR, 142–255) for FebriDx-positive patients (difference of −134 minutes; 95% CI, −144 to −122; P < .0001). The negative predictive value of FebriDx for the identification of COVID-19 was 96% (661 of 690; 95% CI, 94%–97%).

FebriDx improved the triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 and reduced the time that severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR-negative patients spent in a high-risk area alongside SARS-CoV-2–positive patients.