Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial treating comorbid obesity and major depressive disorder

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Obesity is often comorbid with depression and individuals with this comorbidity fare worse in behavioral weight loss treatment. Treating depression directly prior to behavioral weight loss treatment might bolster weight loss outcomes in this population, but this has not yet been tested in a randomized clinical trial.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>This randomized clinical trial will examine whether behavior therapy for depression administered prior to standard weight loss treatment produces greater weight loss than standard weight loss treatment alone. Obese women with major depressive disorder (N = 174) will be recruited from primary care clinics and the community and randomly assigned to one of the two treatment conditions. Treatment will last 2 years, and will include a 6-month intensive treatment phase followed by an 18-month maintenance phase. Follow-up assessment will occur at 6-months and 1- and 2 years following randomization. The primary outcome is weight loss. The study was designed to provide 90% power for detecting a weight change difference between conditions of 3.1 kg (standard deviation of 5.5 kg) at 1-year assuming a 25% rate of loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes include depression, physical activity, dietary intake, psychosocial variables and cardiovascular risk factors. Potential mediators (e.g., adherence, depression, physical activity and caloric intake) of the intervention effect on weight change will also be examined.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Treating depression before administering intensive health behavior interventions could potentially boost the impact on both mental and physical health outcomes.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00572520</p

Practical guidelines for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection

The potential for ischemic preconditioning to reduce infarct size was first recognized more than 30 years ago. Despite extension of the concept to ischemic postconditioning and remote ischemic conditioning and literally thousands of experimental studies in various species and models which identified a multitude of signaling steps, so far there is only a single and very recent study, which has unequivocally translated cardioprotection to improved clinical outcome as the primary endpoint in patients. Many potential reasons for this disappointing lack of clinical translation of cardioprotection have been proposed, including lack of rigor and reproducibility in preclinical studies, and poor design and conduct of clinical trials. There is, however, universal agreement that robust preclinical data are a mandatory prerequisite to initiate a meaningful clinical trial. In this context, it is disconcerting that the CAESAR consortium (Consortium for preclinicAl assESsment of cARdioprotective therapies) in a highly standardized multi-center approach of preclinical studies identified only ischemic preconditioning, but not nitrite or sildenafil, when given as adjunct to reperfusion, to reduce infarct size. However, ischemic preconditioning—due to its very nature—can only be used in elective interventions, and not in acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, better strategies to identify robust and reproducible strategies of cardioprotection, which can subsequently be tested in clinical trials must be developed. We refer to the recent guidelines for experimental models of myocardial ischemia and infarction, and aim to provide now practical guidelines to ensure rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection. In line with the above guideline, we define rigor as standardized state-of-the-art design, conduct and reporting of a study, which is then a prerequisite for reproducibility, i.e. replication of results by another laboratory when performing exactly the same experiment