Biomedical subjects

Richard J Drake

Publications and source records attributed to Richard J Drake.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Neurometabolites and Antipsychotic Response in Psychosis: A Mega-Analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Revealing neurobiological markers of antipsychotic nonresponse in psychosis may aid outcome prediction and inform novel treatment targets. OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in neurometabolites in antipsychotic nonresponsive compared to antipsychotic-responsive psychosis using individual participant data and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science was searched for studies published between January 1, 1980, and November 1, 2025. Authors of 21 eligible studies identified before August 2024 were invited to contribute individual participant data. STUDY SELECTION: Eighteen studies examining neurometabolites by treatment response in psychosis contributed individual participant data for the mega-analysis. These studies plus a further 5 studies were included in the meta-analyses of standardized mean differences and variability. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Individual participant data were analyzed using linear mixed models with study as a random effect. Subgroup analyses examined prospective designs and treatment-resistant samples. Published group means and standard deviations were extracted for meta-analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Group differences in glutamate, glutamate plus glutamine, choline, myo-inositol, N-acetylaspartate, γ-aminobutyric acid, and glutathione in the medial frontal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, thalamus, and basal ganglia. RESULTS: The mega-analysis included 1189 participants from 18 studies; of these, 476 were treatment nonresponders (mean [SD] age, 33.0 [12.5] years; 340 male), 427 were treatment responders (mean [SD] age, 30.3 [11.5] years; 299 male), and 286 were healthy control individuals (mean [SD] age, 31.0 [12.5] years; 170 male). Compared with the antipsychotic response group, nonresponders showed elevations in medial frontal glutamate (Glass Δ = 0.21; P = .02), glutamate plus glutamine (Glass Δ = 0.29; P = .002), choline (Glass Δ = 0.22; P = .03), and myo-inositol (Glass Δ = 0.35; P = .001); similar elevations were observed relative to control individuals. Elevated medial frontal glutamate plus glutamine in antipsychotic nonresponders compared with responders was also observed prospectively in first-episode psychosis (Glass Δ = 0.41; P = .002), whereas myo-inositol elevations were greatest in individuals meeting criteria for treatment-resistance (Glass Δ = 0.64; P = .001). The meta-analysis of 23 studies (1844 participants) also showed elevated medial frontal choline and myo-inositol in antipsychotic nonresponse compared with response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings provide evidence of an association between antipsychotic nonresponse in psychosis with elevations in medial frontal glutamate, choline, and myo-inositol. The presence of elevations in these markers supports the continued investigation of glutamate-acting and inflammatory pathway-associated interventions for psychosis and schizophrenia.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Evaluating Wearable Devices for Remote Monitoring in Psychosis: Pilot Study Nested Within the CONNECT Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital remote monitoring technologies, including smartphones and wearables, offer promising avenues for early detection of psychosis relapse. However, selecting devices that are acceptable to participants and produce high-quality data remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this nested pilot study was to assess the acceptability and data quality of 3 commercially available wearable devices in people with psychosis recruited to the CONNECT cohort study. METHODS: Participants recruited to the CONNECT study before July 31, 2024, were included in the pilot study and selected 1 of 3 wearable devices: a Fitbit Charge 5, Samsung Galaxy Watch 5, or Apple Watch SE. Baseline demographics were compared between device groups. Acceptability of devices to participants was assessed through a Wearable Device Satisfaction Questionnaire after 3 months of use, with the proportion of positive responses to each question calculated and compared. Data completeness was also assessed by calculating the number (and percentage) of valid days of step count, heart rate, and sleep data, and comparing between groups. Data quality was assessed through summarizing the amount of troubleshooting required, additional metrics available from the wearables, and continuity of data completeness by calculating the proportion of participants with at least 3 days of heart rate data per week for the first 20 weeks of follow-up. Predefined criteria were used to determine the next steps for the wider CONNECT study: if one device was superior, this would be selected; if none were found to be superior and the Fitbit was found to be noninferior, then Fitbit would be retained. RESULTS: Of the first 107 participants recruited to CONNECT, 105 were included in the pilot study evaluation. The Samsung Galaxy Watch was selected most frequently by participants (46/105, 43.8%), followed by the Apple Watch (27/105, 25.7%), and Fitbit Charge (23/105, 21.9%). Differences in participant demographics were observed across device groups. Self-reported acceptability after use did not differ substantially between devices. However, in terms of data completeness, the median proportion of valid heart rate data days was significantly lower for Samsung Galaxy (median 31.2%, IQR 8.5%-46.0%) compared to Fitbit (median 80.1%, IQR 26.7%-95.0%; P=.003) and Apple Watch (median 49.3%, IQR 21.5%-86.0%; P=.02). There was no significant difference between Fitbit and Apple Watch. Similar patterns were observed for step count and sleep data. The Samsung Galaxy Watch required more frequent troubleshooting for data flow issues and lacked additional physiological metrics, available from the other devices. CONCLUSIONS: Due to comparatively lower data quality and technical performance, the Samsung Galaxy Watch was discontinued for use in the subsequent phase of the CONNECT study. The study highlights the importance of incorporating nested evaluations of devices in long-term research.

Humans↗