Treatment of chronically depressed patients: A multisite randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of 'Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy' (CBASP) for chronic depressions versus usual secondary care

AbstractBackground'Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy' (CBASP) is a form of psychotherapy specifically developed for patients with chronic depression. In a study in the U.S., remarkable favorable effects of CBASP have been demonstrated. However, no other studies have as yet replicated these findings and CBASP has not been tested outside the United States. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of CBASP in the Netherlands.Methods/DesignThe purpose of the present paper is to report the study protocol of a multisite randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of 'Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy' (CBASP) for chronic depression in the Netherlands. In this study, CBASP in combination with medication, will be tested versus usual secondary care in combination with medication. The aim is to recruit 160 patients from three mental health care organizations. Depressive symptoms will be assessed at baseline, after 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 32 weeks and 52 weeks, using the 28-item Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS). Effect modification by co morbid anxiety, alcohol consumption, general and social functioning and working alliance will be tested. GEE analyses of covariance, controlling for baseline value and center will be used to estimate the overall treatment effectiveness (difference in IDS score) at post-treatment and follow up. The primary analysis will be by 'intention to treat' using double sided tests. An economic analysis will compare the two groups in terms of mean costs and cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective.DiscussionThe study will provide an answer to the question whether the favorable effects of CBASP can be replicated outside the US

Stepped care targeting psychological distress in head and neck and lung cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Psychological distress is common in cancer survivors. Although there is some evidence on effectiveness of psychosocial care in distressed cancer patients, referral rate is low. Lack of adequate screening instruments in oncology settings and insufficient availability of traditional models of psychosocial care are the main barriers. A stepped care approach has the potential to improve the efficiency of psychosocial care. The aim of the study described herein is to evaluate efficacy of a stepped care strategy targeting psychological distress in cancer survivors.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The study is designed as a randomized clinical trial with 2 treatment arms: a stepped care intervention programme versus care as usual. Patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) or lung cancer (LC) are screened for distress using OncoQuest, a computerized touchscreen system. After stratification for tumour (HNC vs. LC) and stage (stage I/II vs. III/IV), 176 distressed patients are randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group will follow a stepped care model with 4 evidence based steps: 1. Watchful waiting, 2. Guided self-help via Internet or a booklet, 3. Problem Solving Treatment administered by a specialized nurse, and 4. Specialized psychological intervention or antidepressant medication. In the control group, patients receive care as usual which most often is a single interview or referral to specialized intervention. Primary outcome is the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Secondary outcome measures are a clinical level of depression or anxiety (CIDI), quality of life (EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-HN35, QLQ-LC13), patient satisfaction with care (EORTC QLQ-PATSAT), and costs (health care utilization and work loss (TIC-P and PRODISQ modules)). Outcomes are evaluated before and after intervention and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Stepped care is a system of delivering and monitoring treatments, such that effective, yet least resource-intensive, treatment is delivered to patients first. The main aim of a stepped care approach is to simplify the patient pathway, provide access to more patients and to improve patient well-being and cost reduction by directing, where appropriate, patients to low cost (self-)management before high cost specialist services.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NTR1868</p

A structured telephone-delivered intervention to reduce problem alcohol use (Ready2Change): study protocol for a parallel group randomised controlled trial

Background: Current population surveys suggest around 20% of Australians meet diagnostic criteria for an alcohol use disorder. However, only a minority seek professional help due to individual and structural barriers, such as low health literacy, stigma, geography, service operating hours and wait lists. Telephone-delivered interventions are readily accessible and ideally placed to overcome these barriers. We will conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the efficacy of a standalone, structured telephone-delivered intervention to reduce alcohol consumption, problem severity and related psychological distress among individuals with problem alcohol use. Methods/design: This is a single site, parallel group, two-arm superiority RCT. We will recruit 344 participants from across Australia with problem alcohol use. After completing a baseline assessment, participants will be randomly allocated to receive either the Ready2Change (R2C) intervention (n = 172, four to six sessions of structured telephone-delivered intervention, R2C self-help resource, guidelines for alcohol consumption and stress management pamphlets) or the control condition (n = 172, four phone check-ins < 5 min, guidelines for alcohol consumption and stress management pamphlets). Telephone follow-up assessments will occur at 4-6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post-baseline. The primary outcome is the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score administered at 3 months post-baseline. Secondary outcomes include change in AUDIT score (6 and 12 months post-baseline), change in number of past-month heavy drinking days, psychological distress, health and wellbeing, quality of life, client treatment evaluation and cost effectiveness. Discussion: This study will be one of the first RCTs conducted internationally to examine the impact of a standalone, structured telephone-delivered intervention to address problem alcohol use and associated psychological morbidity. The proposed intervention is expected to contribute to the health and wellbeing of individuals who are otherwise unlikely to seek treatment through mainstream service models, to reduce the burden on specialist services and primary care providers and to provide an accessible and proportionate response, with resulting cost savings for the health system and broader community. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000828224. Pre-registered on 16 May 2018

Blood Pressure Lowering With Nilvadipine in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer Disease Does Not Increase the Prevalence of Orthostatic Hypotension

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is common among patients with Alzheimer disease. Because this group has been excluded from hypertension trials, evidence regarding safety of treatment is lacking. This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial assessed whether antihypertensive treatment increases the prevalence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in patients with Alzheimer disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred seventy‐seven patients with mild‐to‐moderate Alzheimer disease were randomized to the calcium‐channel blocker nilvadipine 8 mg/day or placebo for 78 weeks. Presence of OH (blood pressure drop ≥20/≥10 mm Hg after 1 minute of standing) and OH‐related adverse events (dizziness, syncope, falls, and fractures) was determined at 7 follow‐up visits. Mean age of the study population was 72.2±8.2 years and mean Mini‐Mental State Examination score was 20.4±3.8. Baseline blood pressure was 137.8±14.0/77.0±8.6 mm Hg. Grade I hypertension was present in 53.4% (n=255). After 13 weeks, blood pressure had fallen by −7.8/−3.9 mm Hg for nilvadipine and by −0.4/−0.8 mm Hg for placebo (P<0.001). Across the 78‐week intervention period, there was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients with OH at a study visit (odds ratio [95% CI]=1.1 [0.8–1.5], P=0.62), nor in the proportion of visits where a patient met criteria for OH, corrected for number of visits (7.7±13.8% versus 7.3±11.6%). OH‐related adverse events were not more often reported in the intervention group compared with placebo. Results were similar for those with baseline hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild‐to‐moderate Alzheimer disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02017340

The Effect of Interpersonal Psychotherapy and other Psychodynamic Therapies versus ‘Treatment as Usual’ in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus ‘treatment as usual’ for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed ‘interpersonal psychotherapy’ and only one trial assessed ‘psychodynamic psychotherapy’. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference −3.12 (95% confidence interval −4.39 to −1.86;P<0.00001), no heterogeneity) compared with ‘treatment as usual’. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result.We did not find convincing evidence supporting or refuting the effect of interpersonal psychotherapy or psychodynamic therapy compared with ‘treatment as usual’ for patients with major depressive disorder. The potential beneficial effect seems small and effects on major outcomes are unknown. Randomized trials with low risk of systematic errors and low risk of random errors are needed