Search

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 lat

Objectives: To examine whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. Method: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 to November 2016, we recruited 276 people aged 18 or over, who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. We excluded those with co-existing bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabiliser, and women at risk of pregnancy. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to up to 400mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomization service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes 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: 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. Mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD = 6.6) among those randomized to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD = 7.7) among those randomized to placebo (adjusted difference in means = 0.1, 95% C.I = -1.8 to 2.0, p=0.91). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. Conclusions: Treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for recurrent non-cardiac chest pain. Methods: We tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for chest pain (CBT-CP)(4-10 sessions) in patients who attended cardiology clinics or emergency medical services repeatedly. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based system to CBT-CP or to standard care in the clinic. Assessments were made at baseline and at six and 12 months. The primary outcome was the change in the Health Anxiety Inventory score at six months. Other clinical measures, social functioning, quality of life, and costs of services were also recorded. Results: 68 patients were randomised with low attrition rates at 6 and 12 months with 81% of all possible assessments completed at 6 and 12 months. Although there were no significant group differences between any of the outcome measures at either 6 or 12 months, patients receiving CBT-CP had between two and three times fewer hospital bed days, outpatient appointments, and A&E attendances than those allocated to standard care and total costs per patient were £1496.49 lower, though the differences in costs were not significant. There was a small non-significant gain in quality adjusted life years (QALY's) in those allocated to CBT-CP compared with standard care (0.76 vs 0.74). Conclusions: It is concluded that CBT-CP in the context of current hospital structures is not a viable treatment, but is worthy of further research as a potentially cost-effective treatment for non-cardiac chest pain.

Background Most patients with chest pain have nothing wrong with their cardiac function. Psychological forms of treatment for this condition are more likely to be successful than others. Methods/design A two-arm parallel controlled randomized trial of standard care versus a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for chest pain (CBT-CP) in patients who have attended emergency hospital services. Inclusion criteria include (i) emergency attendance more than once in the previous year with chest pain when no physical pathology has been found, (ii) aged between 16 and 75, (iii) signed consent to take part in the study. Exclusion criteria are (i) under current psychiatric care, (ii) those who have had new psychotropic drugs prescribed within the last two months, (iii) are receiving or about to receive a formal psychological treatment. Those satisfying these criteria will be randomized to 4–10 sessions of CBT-CP or to continue with standard care. Participants are randomized using a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre. Assessment is carried out at baseline by researchers subsequently masked to allocation and at 6 months and 1 year after randomization. The primary outcome is the Health Anxiety Inventory score at 6 months, and secondary outcomes are generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms, the Lucock Health Anxiety Questionnaire adapted for chest pain, visual analogue scales for chest pain and discomfort (Inskip Scale), the Schedule for Evaluating Persistent Symptoms (SEPS), health related quality of life, social functioning and medical resource usage. Intention to treat analyses will be carried out with clinical and functioning data, and a cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. The data will also be linked to another parallel study in New Zealand where 126 patients with the same inclusion criteria have been treated in a similar t

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 lat

Background: People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) experience rapid and distressing changes in mood, poor social functioning and have high rates of suicidal behaviour. Several small scale studies suggest that mood stabilizers may produce short-term reductions in symptoms of BPD, but have not been large enough to fully examine clinical and cost-effectiveness. Methods/Design: A two parallel-arm, placebo controlled randomized trial of usual care plus either lamotrigine or an inert placebo for people aged over 18 who are using mental health services and meet diagnostic criteria for BPD. We will exclude people with comorbid bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, those who speak insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who are pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. Those meeting inclusion criteria and provide written informed consent will be randomized to up to 200mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo (up to 400mg if taking combined oral contraceptives).Participants will be randomized via a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre, severity of personality disorder, and level of bipolarity. Follow-up assessments will be conducted by masked researchers 12, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome is the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD). The secondary outcomes are depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, adverse events and withdrawal of trial medication due to adverse effects. The main analyses will use intention to treat without imputation of missing data. The economic evaluation will take an NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. A cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. Discussion: The e

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for recurrent non-cardiac chest pain. Methods: We tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for chest pain (CBT-CP)(4-10 sessions) in patients who attended cardiology clinics or emergency medical services repeatedly. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based system to CBT-CP or to standard care in the clinic. Assessments were made at baseline and at six and 12 months. The primary outcome was the change in the Health Anxiety Inventory score at six months. Other clinical measures, social functioning, quality of life, and costs of services were also recorded. Results: 68 patients were randomised with low attrition rates at 6 and 12 months with 81% of all possible assessments completed at 6 and 12 months. Although there were no significant group differences between any of the outcome measures at either 6 or 12 months, patients receiving CBT-CP had between two and three times fewer hospital bed days, outpatient appointments, and A&E attendances than those allocated to standard care and total costs per patient were £1496.49 lower, though the differences in costs were not significant. There was a small non-significant gain in quality adjusted life years (QALY's) in those allocated to CBT-CP compared with standard care (0.76 vs 0.74). Conclusions: It is concluded that CBT-CP in the context of current hospital structures is not a viable treatment, but is worthy of further research as a potentially cost-effective treatment for non-cardiac chest pain.

Objectives: To examine whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. Method: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 to November 2016, we recruited 276 people aged 18 or over, who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. We excluded those with co-existing bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabiliser, and women at risk of pregnancy. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to up to 400mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomization service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes 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: 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. Mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD = 6.6) among those randomized to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD = 7.7) among those randomized to placebo (adjusted difference in means = 0.1, 95% C.I = -1.8 to 2.0, p=0.91). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. Conclusions: Treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Background Most patients with chest pain have nothing wrong with their cardiac function. Psychological forms of treatment for this condition are more likely to be successful than others. Methods/design A two-arm parallel controlled randomized trial of standard care versus a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for chest pain (CBT-CP) in patients who have attended emergency hospital services. Inclusion criteria include (i) emergency attendance more than once in the previous year with chest pain when no physical pathology has been found, (ii) aged between 16 and 75, (iii) signed consent to take part in the study. Exclusion criteria are (i) under current psychiatric care, (ii) those who have had new psychotropic drugs prescribed within the last two months, (iii) are receiving or about to receive a formal psychological treatment. Those satisfying these criteria will be randomized to 4–10 sessions of CBT-CP or to continue with standard care. Participants are randomized using a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre. Assessment is carried out at baseline by researchers subsequently masked to allocation and at 6 months and 1 year after randomization. The primary outcome is the Health Anxiety Inventory score at 6 months, and secondary outcomes are generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms, the Lucock Health Anxiety Questionnaire adapted for chest pain, visual analogue scales for chest pain and discomfort (Inskip Scale), the Schedule for Evaluating Persistent Symptoms (SEPS), health related quality of life, social functioning and medical resource usage. Intention to treat analyses will be carried out with clinical and functioning data, and a cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. The data will also be linked to another parallel study in New Zealand where 126 patients with the same inclusion criteria have been treated in a similar t

Summary: Multimorbidity—the coexistence of at least two chronic health conditions within the same individual—is an important global health challenge. In high‐income countries (HICs), multimorbidity is dominated by non‐communicable diseases (NCDs); whereas, the situation may be different in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), where chronic communicable diseases remain prominent. The aim of this systematic review was to identify determinants (including risk and protective factors) and potential mechanisms underlying multimorbidity from published longitudinal studies across diverse population‐based or community‐dwelling populations in LMICs. We systematically searched three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Global Health) using pre‐defined search terms and selection criteria, complemented by hand‐searching. All titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers from a pool of four researchers. Data extraction and reporting were according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methodological quality and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Data were summarized using narrative synthesis. The search yielded 1782 records. Of the 52 full‐text articles included for review, 8 longitudinal population‐based studies were included for final data synthesis. Almost all studies were conducted in Asia, with only one from South America and none from Africa. All studies were published in the last decade, with half published in the year 2021. The definitions used for multimorbidity were heterogeneous, including 3–16 chronic conditions per study. The leading chronic conditions were heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, and there was a lack of consideration of mental health conditions (MHCs), infectious diseases, and undernutrition. Prospectively evaluated determinants included socio‐economic status, markers of social inequities, childh

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 lat

Objectives: To examine whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. Method: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 to November 2016, we recruited 276 people aged 18 or over, who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. We excluded those with co-existing bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabiliser, and women at risk of pregnancy. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to up to 400mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomization service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes 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: 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. Mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD = 6.6) among those randomized to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD = 7.7) among those randomized to placebo (adjusted difference in means = 0.1, 95% C.I = -1.8 to 2.0, p=0.91). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. Conclusions: Treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Background: People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) experience rapid and distressing changes in mood, poor social functioning and have high rates of suicidal behaviour. Several small scale studies suggest that mood stabilizers may produce short-term reductions in symptoms of BPD, but have not been large enough to fully examine clinical and cost-effectiveness. Methods/Design: A two parallel-arm, placebo controlled randomized trial of usual care plus either lamotrigine or an inert placebo for people aged over 18 who are using mental health services and meet diagnostic criteria for BPD. We will exclude people with comorbid bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, those who speak insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who are pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. Those meeting inclusion criteria and provide written informed consent will be randomized to up to 200mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo (up to 400mg if taking combined oral contraceptives).Participants will be randomized via a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre, severity of personality disorder, and level of bipolarity. Follow-up assessments will be conducted by masked researchers 12, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome is the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD). The secondary outcomes are depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, adverse events and withdrawal of trial medication due to adverse effects. The main analyses will use intention to treat without imputation of missing data. The economic evaluation will take an NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. A cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. Discussion: The e

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for recurrent non-cardiac chest pain. Methods: We tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for chest pain (CBT-CP)(4-10 sessions) in patients who attended cardiology clinics or emergency medical services repeatedly. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based system to CBT-CP or to standard care in the clinic. Assessments were made at baseline and at six and 12 months. The primary outcome was the change in the Health Anxiety Inventory score at six months. Other clinical measures, social functioning, quality of life, and costs of services were also recorded. Results: 68 patients were randomised with low attrition rates at 6 and 12 months with 81% of all possible assessments completed at 6 and 12 months. Although there were no significant group differences between any of the outcome measures at either 6 or 12 months, patients receiving CBT-CP had between two and three times fewer hospital bed days, outpatient appointments, and A&E attendances than those allocated to standard care and total costs per patient were £1496.49 lower, though the differences in costs were not significant. There was a small non-significant gain in quality adjusted life years (QALY's) in those allocated to CBT-CP compared with standard care (0.76 vs 0.74). Conclusions: It is concluded that CBT-CP in the context of current hospital structures is not a viable treatment, but is worthy of further research as a potentially cost-effective treatment for non-cardiac chest pain.

Background Most patients with chest pain have nothing wrong with their cardiac function. Psychological forms of treatment for this condition are more likely to be successful than others. Methods/design A two-arm parallel controlled randomized trial of standard care versus a modified form of cognitive behaviour therapy for chest pain (CBT-CP) in patients who have attended emergency hospital services. Inclusion criteria include (i) emergency attendance more than once in the previous year with chest pain when no physical pathology has been found, (ii) aged between 16 and 75, (iii) signed consent to take part in the study. Exclusion criteria are (i) under current psychiatric care, (ii) those who have had new psychotropic drugs prescribed within the last two months, (iii) are receiving or about to receive a formal psychological treatment. Those satisfying these criteria will be randomized to 4–10 sessions of CBT-CP or to continue with standard care. Participants are randomized using a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre. Assessment is carried out at baseline by researchers subsequently masked to allocation and at 6 months and 1 year after randomization. The primary outcome is the Health Anxiety Inventory score at 6 months, and secondary outcomes are generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms, the Lucock Health Anxiety Questionnaire adapted for chest pain, visual analogue scales for chest pain and discomfort (Inskip Scale), the Schedule for Evaluating Persistent Symptoms (SEPS), health related quality of life, social functioning and medical resource usage. Intention to treat analyses will be carried out with clinical and functioning data, and a cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. The data will also be linked to another parallel study in New Zealand where 126 patients with the same inclusion criteria have been treated in a similar t

Objectives: To examine whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. Method: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 to November 2016, we recruited 276 people aged 18 or over, who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. We excluded those with co-existing bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabiliser, and women at risk of pregnancy. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to up to 400mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomization service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes 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: 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those prescribed lamotrigine and 58 (42%) of those prescribed placebo were taking it. Mean total ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD = 6.6) among those randomized to lamotrigine and 11.5 (SD = 7.7) among those randomized to placebo (adjusted difference in means = 0.1, 95% C.I = -1.8 to 2.0, p=0.91). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care for those prescribed lamotrigine were similar to those prescribed placebo. Conclusions: Treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.