A train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border on February 3, 2023, resulted in the release of hazardous substances and chemical exposures among residents and Pennsylvania first responders. We aimed to analyze data collected from an Assessment of Chemical Exposure (ACE) survey to better understand unique exposures and health symptoms among Pennsylvania first responders and identify additional safety measures to protect responders in future hazardous materials spill events.

Descriptive statistics for ACE survey results from 114 Pennsylvania first responders were produced and relationships between exposures, health symptoms, and occupation type were examined using logistical regression models.

First responder occupation title and job duties were determinants of chemical exposure types, and specific chemical exposure types were associated with unique health outcomes. Firefighters and those with a job duty to suppress the fire were more likely to report contact with vapor/gas compared to all other roles and those with a duty of environmental monitoring. Contact with vapor/gas was associated with increased likelihood of reporting 2 or more health symptoms.

This analysis highlights the necessity of tailoring emergency response action plans and personal protective equipment considering first responder occupation title and to the specific duties conducted within their role.

User engagement is recognised as a critical and pervasive challenge that has limited the potential evidence base being developed for mental health apps.

To understand young people’s motivations for participating in a randomised controlled trial for a mental health app and the role of intrinsic (e.g. improving well-being) and extrinsic (e.g. financial incentives) drivers in engagement.

Emotional Competence for Well-Being (ECoWeB) was a superiority parallel three-arm randomised cohort trial recruiting a cohort of 16–22 year-olds across the UK, Germany, Spain and Belgium, who, depending on risk, were allocated respectively to the PREVENT (n = 1262) versus PROMOTE (n = 2532) trials. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews in the UK (n = 18, mean age = 17.7, s.d. = 1.5) and Spain (n = 11, mean age 20.6, s.d. = 1.7) to explore participants’ self-reported motivations and engagement. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04148508.

Across arms, 21% of participants never set up an account to access the app and approximately 50% did not complete the 3-month follow-up assessment. Engagement was not significantly higher in the intervention arm compared to the control arms across metrics. Qualitative findings demonstrated that although extrinsic factors alone may be enough to prompt someone to sign up to research, intrinsic drivers (e.g. finding the app useful) are needed to ensure longer-term engagement.

Incentivising participation in clinical trials needs to be consistent with incentives that might be utilised at the point of dissemination and implementation to ensure that findings are replicated if that intervention is adopted at scale.

It remains unclear which individuals with subthreshold depression benefit most from psychological intervention, and what long-term effects this has on symptom deterioration, response and remission.

To synthesise psychological intervention benefits in adults with subthreshold depression up to 2 years, and explore participant-level effect-modifiers.

Randomised trials comparing psychological intervention with inactive control were identified via systematic search. Authors were contacted to obtain individual participant data (IPD), analysed using Bayesian one-stage meta-analysis. Treatment–covariate interactions were added to examine moderators. Hierarchical-additive models were used to explore treatment benefits conditional on baseline Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) values.

IPD of 10 671 individuals (50 studies) could be included. We found significant effects on depressive symptom severity up to 12 months (standardised mean-difference [s.m.d.] = −0.48 to −0.27). Effects could not be ascertained up to 24 months (s.m.d. = −0.18). Similar findings emerged for 50% symptom reduction (relative risk = 1.27–2.79), reliable improvement (relative risk = 1.38–3.17), deterioration (relative risk = 0.67–0.54) and close-to-symptom-free status (relative risk = 1.41–2.80). Among participant-level moderators, only initial depression and anxiety severity were highly credible (P > 0.99). Predicted treatment benefits decreased with lower symptom severity but remained minimally important even for very mild symptoms (s.m.d. = −0.33 for PHQ-9 = 5).

Psychological intervention reduces the symptom burden in individuals with subthreshold depression up to 1 year, and protects against symptom deterioration. Benefits up to 2 years are less certain. We find strong support for intervention in subthreshold depression, particularly with PHQ-9 scores ≥ 10. For very mild symptoms, scalable treatments could be an attractive option.

Disruptions of antipsychotic therapy lead to greater symptoms and increased likelihood of relapse. One way to improve medication adherence has been with long-acting formulations, usually administered by injection. Implantable technology has been used to support medication continuity in a few therapeutic areas, e.g., contraception. Despite the potential benefits from implants, this modality is not yet available for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. Delpor, Inc. is developing an investigational risperidone implant (DLP-114) that releases therapeutic drug levels for up to 12-months. Initial clinical findings are reported below.

The DLP-114 implant is a titanium cylinder approximately 4-5 cm long and 5 mm in diameter. It has membranes mounted on each end and is loaded with a proprietary formulation of risperidone.

The clinical study (NCT04418466) was an open-label study in stable schizophrenia patients to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of switching from oral risperidone to DLP-114. Schizophrenia patients (N=28), stable on a 2-3 mg dose of oral risperidone for ≥2 weeks were randomized to receive either 6- or 12-month DLP-114 implant devices. Each patient received two DLP-114 devices implanted in the abdomen. Device placements were conducted through a 10-minute procedure using local anesthetic and a custom placement tool. Plasma levels of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were tracked over the treatment period, and patients were clinically monitored for signs of relapse. Patient safety (including local tolerance and emergent AEs) and PK were the principal endpoints. Secondary clinical endpoints included PANSS and CGI scores.

The placement and removal procedures were well tolerated. Of 28 enrolled patients, two were lost to follow up and one asked to have the implant removed prior to the end of the dosing period. One nonrelated SAE (pulmonary embolism) was reported. Treatment-related AEs were generally mild, and included implant site pain/soreness/tenderness, drowsiness, ecchymosis, increased appetite, insomnia, and headache. The PK profile in both groups followed near zero-order kinetics with both dosing periods until the end of study. The average steady-state plasma concentration ranged between 7-13 ng/mL. One patient was removed from the study with signs of impending relapse. All other patients were clinically stable for the study duration, with average PANSS scores from 50-60 and CGI-I scores from 3-4. PANSS and CGI-I scores were comparable between the oral and the implant phases of the study.

DLP-114 was well tolerated for up to 12 months. Average PANSS and CGI-I scores were similar between the oral and implant treatment phases, suggesting that, for most patients, DLP-114 provided a comparable therapeutic benefit to 2-3 mg of daily oral risperidone over time. Plasma concentrations of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were substantially constant for 6-12 months, but values for steady-state Cave fell slightly below the target of 10-14 ng/mL.

Research reported in this poster was supported by Delpor, Inc. and by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under award number R44MH094036.

This study evaluated the impact of 2015/2016 prescribing guidance on antidepressant prescribing choices in children.

A retrospective e-cohort study of whole population routine electronic healthcare records was conducted. Poisson regression was undertaken to explore trends over time for depression, antidepressant prescribing, indications and secondary care contacts. Time trend analysis was conducted to assess the impact of guidance.

A total of 643 322 primary care patients in Wales UK, aged 6–17 years from 2010–2019 contributed 3 215 584 person-years of follow-up. Adjusted incidence of depression more than doubled (IRR for 2019 = 2.8 [2.5–3.2]) with similar trends seen for antidepressants. Fluoxetine was the most frequently prescribed first-line antidepressant. Citalopram comprised less than 5% of first prescriptions in younger children but 22.9% (95% CI 22.0–23.8; 95% CI 2533) in 16–17-year-olds. Approximately half of new antidepressant prescribing was associated with depression. Segmented regression analysis showed that prescriptions of ‘all’ antidepressants, Fluoxetine and Sertraline were increasing before the guidance. This upward trend flattened for both ‘all’ antidepressants and Fluoxetine and steepened for Sertraline. Citalopram prescribing was decreasing significantly pre guidance being issued with no significant change afterward.

Targeted intervention is needed to address rising rates of depression in children. Practitioners are partially adhering to local and national guidance. The decision-making process behind prescribing choices is likely to be multi-factorial. Activities to support implementation of guidance should be adopted in relation to safety in prescribing of antidepressants in children including timely availability of talking therapies and specialist mental health services.

Single-arm studies, particularly single-arm trials (SATs), are increasingly being used in submissions for marketing authorization and health technology assessment. As reviewers of evidence, we sought to better understand the validity of SATs, compared with observational single-arm studies (case series), and how to assess them in our reviews.

We conducted a highly pragmatic literature review to create a convenience sample of recent systematic reviews published from January to July 2023 to establish the following: (i) what single-arm study designs are included; (ii) what quality assessment tools are used; and (iii) whether there is a difference in effect size and variability among different study designs. A single reviewer identified reviews of interventions that included single-arm studies and extracted information on the numbers of included SATs and case series, and the quality assessment tools used. Any misclassifications by review authors were identified. For meta-analyses, outcome data were extracted and a subgroup analysis comparing SATs and case series was conducted.

Work is still underway to complete this investigation. So far, it appears that a large proportion of systematic reviews misclassify SATs and case series studies and few use appropriate quality assessment tools. There is not yet any evidence of a systematic difference between SATs and case series in terms of effect size.

Findings suggest that there is poor understanding of SATs in the review community. There are limited specific quality assessment tools for SATs and review authors frequently use inappropriate tools to assess them. More research is likely to be needed to investigate the relative validity of SATs and single-arm observational studies.

As the most internally rigorous design, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing the efficacy and safety profile of interventions. Increasingly, health technology assessment (HTA) considers evidence from non-randomized studies. Guidance recommends synthesizing different study designs separately due to their different inherent biases/limitations. But when authors or reviewers misclassify studies, this could affect which studies are included and therefore have an impact on review results.

We are conducting a methods project to (i) identify a clear study design classification system, (ii) explore whether its use produces consistent study design categorizations among reviewers, and (iii) iteratively improve the classification system. We performed a pragmatic web-based search for study design categorization tools and used the resulting schemas to develop a clear algorithm for use by reviewers of all levels of experience, specifically in reviews of treatment interventions. Next, we tested tool consistency and user experience by web-based survey in a small internal sample of reviewers, each independently using the system to categorize 18 published studies.

A median of seven reviewers (range four to eight) categorized each study. Rater agreement using the chart varied widely, with 100 percent agreement on the designs of three studies (17%), and at least 75 percent of reviewers agreeing on one design for nine studies (50%). The most common agreement was reached on RCTs and non-randomized controlled trials. The most common sources of disagreement were between different types of cohort studies and between case series and controlled cohort studies, largely due to inconsistent reporting. We also identified several improvements: the wording of prompt questions, the ordering of designs, and the addition of new elements.

The classification system as initially designed led to too much variation in study design categorization to be useful. Consequently, we present a revised version that we now aim to evaluate in a larger sample of reviewers. Further research will also investigate whether using the tool would change the results of systematic reviews, using a small sample of published reviews.