Oral treatment of chickens with Lactobacillus reuteri LM1 reduces Brachyspira pilosicoli-induced pathology

Avian intestinal spirochaetosis (AIS) results from the colonization of the caeca and colon of poultry by pathogenic Brachyspira, notably Brachyspira pilosicoli. Following the ban on the use of antibiotic growth promoters in the European Union in 2006, the number of cases of AIS has increased, which, alongside emerging antimicrobial resistance in Brachyspira, has driven renewed interest in alternative intervention strategies. Lactobacillus-based probiotics have been shown to protect against infection with common enteric pathogens in livestock. Our previous studies have shown that Lactobacillus reuteri LM1 antagonizes aspects of the pathobiology of Brachyspira in vitro. Here, we showed that L. reuteri LM1 mitigates the clinical symptoms of AIS in chickens experimentally challenged with B. pilosicoli. Two groups of 15 commercial laying hens were challenged experimentally by oral gavage with B. pilosicoli B2904 at 18 weeks of age; one group received unsupplemented drinking water and the other received L. reuteri LM1 in drinking water from 1 week prior to challenge with Brachyspira and thereafter for the duration of the study. This treatment regime was protective. Specifically, B. pilosicoli was detected by culture in fewer birds, bird weights were higher, faecal moisture contents were significantly lower (P<0.05) and egg production as assessed by egg weight and faecal staining score was improved (P<0.05). Also, at post-mortem examination, significantly fewer B. pilosicoli were recovered from treated birds (P<0.05), with only mild–moderate histopathological changes observed. These data suggest that L. reuteri LM1 may be a useful tool in the control of AIS.

Treatment of child anxiety in the context of maternal anxiety disorder: a randomised controlled trial and economic analysis

Background Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for childhood anxiety disorders is associated with modest outcomes in the context of parental anxiety disorder. Objectives This study evaluated whether or not the outcome of CBT for children with anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders is improved by the addition of (i) treatment of maternal anxiety disorders, or (ii) treatment focused on maternal responses. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the additional treatments was also evaluated. Design Participants were randomised to receive (i) child cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT); (ii) CCBT with CBT to target maternal anxiety disorders [CCBT + maternal cognitive–behavioural therapy (MCBT)]; or (iii) CCBT with an intervention to target mother–child interactions (MCIs) (CCBT + MCI). Setting A NHS university clinic in Berkshire, UK. Participants Two hundred and eleven children with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had an anxiety disorder. Interventions All families received eight sessions of individual CCBT. Mothers in the CCBT + MCBT arm also received eight sessions of CBT targeting their own anxiety disorders. Mothers in the MCI arm received 10 sessions targeting maternal parenting cognitions and behaviours. Non-specific interventions were delivered to balance groups for therapist contact. Main outcome measures Primary clinical outcomes were the child’s primary anxiety disorder status and degree of improvement at the end of treatment. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 6 and 12 months. Outcomes in the economic analyses were identified and measured using estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYS were combined with treatment, health and social care costs and presented within an incremental cost–utility analysis framework with associated uncertainty. Results MCBT was associated with significant short-term improvement in maternal anxiety; however, after children had received CCBT, group differences were no longer apparent. CCBT + MCI was associated with a reduction in maternal overinvolvement and more confident expectations of the child. However, neither CCBT + MCBT nor CCBT + MCI conferred a significant post-treatment benefit over CCBT in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.62, p = 0.29; adjusted RR CCBT + MCI vs. control: adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.67, p = 0.20, respectively] or global improvement ratings (adjusted RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59, p = 0.05; adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.53, p = 0.13). CCBT + MCI outperformed CCBT on some secondary outcome measures. Furthermore, primary economic analyses suggested that, at commonly accepted thresholds of cost-effectiveness, the probability that CCBT + MCI will be cost-effective in comparison with CCBT (plus non-specific interventions) is about 75%. Conclusions Good outcomes were achieved for children and their mothers across treatment conditions. There was no evidence of a benefit to child outcome of supplementing CCBT with either intervention focusing on maternal anxiety disorder or maternal cognitions and behaviours. However, supplementing CCBT with treatment that targeted maternal cognitions and behaviours represented a cost-effective use of resources, although the high percentage of missing data on some economic variables is a shortcoming. Future work should consider whether or not effects of the adjunct interventions are enhanced in particular contexts. The economic findings highlight the utility of considering the use of a broad range of services when evaluating interventions with this client group. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19762288. Funding This trial was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC–NIHR partnership (09/800/17) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 38.

Recognition, assessment and treatment of social anxiety disorder: summary of NICE guidance

Social anxiety disorder is one of the most persistent and common of the anxiety disorders, with lifetime prevalence rates in Europe of 6.7% (range 3.9-13.7%).1 It often coexists with depression, substance use disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.2 It can severely impair a person’s daily functioning by impeding the formation of relationships, reducing quality of life, and negatively affecting performance at work or school. Despite this, and the fact that effective treatments exist, only about half of people with this condition seek treatment, many after waiting 10-15 years.3 Although about 40% of those who develop the condition in childhood or adolescence recover before adulthood,4 for many the disorder persists into adulthood, with the chance of spontaneous recovery then limited compared with other mental health problems. This article summarises the most recent recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on recognising, assessing, and treating social anxiety disorder in children, young people, and adults.5

Caught in the eye of the storm: a qualitative study of views and experiences of planned drug holidays from methylphenidate in child and adolescent ADHD treatment

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be treated with stimulant medication such as methylphenidate. Although effective, methylphenidate can cause serious side-effects, including suppressed appetite, growth retardation and sleep problems. A drug holiday is a deliberate interruption of pharmacotherapy for a defined period of time and for a specific clinical purpose, for example for appeasing side-effects. Whilst some international guidelines recommend introducing drug holidays in ADHD treatment, this is not practised routinely. Our aim was to examine the views and experiences of planned drug holidays from methylphenidate with adults who have responsibility for treatment decisions in children and adolescents with ADHD. Method: In-depth interviews were carried out. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) practitioners (n=8), General Practitioners (n=8), teachers (n=5), and mothers of children with ADHD (n=4) were interviewed in a UK setting. Interview transcripts were analysed using grounded theory. Results: Methylphenidate eases the experience of the child amid problems at home and at school and once started is mostly continued long-term. Some families do practise short-term drug holidays at weekends and longer-term ones during school holidays. The decision to introduce drug holidays is influenced by the child’s academic progress, the parents’ ability to cope with the child, as well as medication beliefs. Trialling a drug holiday is thought to allow older children to self-assess their ability to manage without medication when they show signs of wanting to discontinue treatment prematurely. Conclusions: Planned drug holidays could address premature treatment cessation by enabling adolescents to assess repercussions under medical supervision.