Aim To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of using liraglutide 3.0 mg daily in the management of overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first episode psychosis. Materials and Methods A double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled pilot trial took place in mental health centres and primary care within Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. The participants were adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective or first‐episode psychosis prescribed antipsychotic medication who were overweight or obese. The intervention was once‐daily subcutaneous liraglutide or placebo, titrated to 3.0 mg daily, for 6 months. The primary outcomes were recruitment, consent, retention and adherence. The secondary exploratory outcomes were weight, HbA1c and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Results Seven hundred and ninety‐nine individuals were screened for eligibility. The most common reasons for exclusion were ineligibility (44%) and inability to make contact (28%). The acceptance rate, as a proportion of all eligible participants, was 12.2%. The most commonly stated reason why eligible candidates declined to participate related to the study‐specific medication and protocol (n = 50). Forty‐seven participants were randomized, with 79% completing the trial. Participants in the liraglutide arm lost a mean 5.7 ± 7.9 kg compared with no significant weight change in the placebo group (treatment difference −6.0 kg, p = .015). Body mass index, waist circumference and HbA1c were reduced in the intervention group. Conclusions This study supports the need for a larger randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of liraglutide (maximum dose 3.0 mg daily) in the management of obesity in people with severe mental illness.

No abstract

BackgroundAspirin has been recommended for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer, but overall benefits are unclear. We aimed to use novel methods to re-evaluate the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin using evidence from randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Methods and FindingsData sources included ten electronic bibliographic databases, contact with experts, and scrutiny of reference lists of included studies. Searches were undertaken in September 2012 and restricted to publications since 2008. Of 2,572 potentially relevant papers 27 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of control arms to estimate event rates, modelling of all-cause mortality and L'Abbé plots to estimate heterogeneity were undertaken. Absolute benefits and harms were low: 60-84 major CVD events and 34-36 colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 person-years were averted, whereas 46-49 major bleeds and 68-117 gastrointestinal bleeds were incurred. Reductions in all-cause mortality were minor and uncertain (Hazard Ratio 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90-1.02 at 20 years, Relative Risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00 at 8 years); there was a non-significant change in total CVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.06) and change in total cancer mortality ranged from 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66-0.88) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84-1.03) depending on follow-up time and studies included. Risks were increased by 37% for gastrointestinal bleeds (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.15-1.62), 54%-66% for major bleeds (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.54, 95% CI: 1.30-1.82, and RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.31-2.00), and 32%-38% for haemorrhagic stroke (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00-1.74; RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82).ConclusionsFindings indicate small absolute effects of aspirin relative to the burden of these diseases. When aspirin is used for primary prevention of CVD the absolute harms exceed the benefits. Estimates of cancer benefit rely on selective retrospective re-analysis of RCTs and more information is needed.

BackgroundEmergency services are facing increasing workload pressures, and new models of care are needed. We evaluate the impact of a service development involving a partnership between emergency ambulance crews and general practitioners (GPs) on reducing conveyance rates to the Hospital Emergency Department(ED) .MethodsThe service model was implemented in the West Midlands of England. Call handlers identified patients with needs that could be addressed by a GP using locally agreed criteria. GPs supported the assessment of such patients either at scene or by telephone. Routine data were collected from October 2012 to November 2013, from the ambulance service computer-aided dispatch system. Logistic regression models were used to determine the likelihood for patients being transported to ED.ResultsOf 23 395 emergency contacts during the evaluation period, 1903 (8.1 %) patients were triaged to GP supported assessment. Mean age (SD) was 61.8 (27.9) years; 42.9 % were aged 75 years and over. 1221 (64.2%) had face-to-face GP assessment and 682 (35.8%) via telephone. 1500 (78%) of those who received GP support were not transported to hospital. After controlling for confounders, those aged greater than 75 years (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.86), and females (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) were less likely to be transported, while those who received GP telephone input rather than face-to-face assessment were more likely to be transferred to an ED (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.69 to 2.72).ConclusionSupport of the paramedic service by GPs enabled patients to avoid transfer to an ED, potentially avoiding subsequent hospital admission, reducing costs and improving quality of care for patients that are not in need of hospital services. However, use of services in the days following the call was not assessed, and hence the overall impact and safety requires further evaluation.