The effects of centralised and specialised combined pharmacological and psychological intervention compared with decentralised and non-specialised treatment in the early course of severe unipolar and bipolar affective disorders - design of two randomised clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In unipolar, and bipolar affective disorders, there is a high risk of relapse that increases as the number of episodes increases. Naturalistic follow-up studies suggest that the progressive development of the diseases is not prevented with the present treatment modalities. It is not known whether centralised and specialised secondary care intervention initiated early after the onset of the diseases can prevent the progression and thereby improve the prognosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two randomised clinical multi-centre trials comparing a centralised and specialised outpatient intervention program consisting of combined pharmacological and psychological intervention with standard decentralised psychiatric treatment. Patients discharged from their first, second, or third hospitalisation due to a manic episode or bipolar disorder (trial 1) or to a single depressive episode or recurrent depressive disorder (trial 2) were randomised. Central randomisations for both trials were stratified for the number of hospitalisations and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure for the two trials is time to re-hospitalisation with an affective episode.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>These trials are the first to evaluate the effect of a centralised and specialised intervention in patients with early severe affective disorders. The trials used a pragmatic design comparing a specialised mood disorder clinic intervention with decentralised, non-specialised standard psychiatric treatment.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00253071">NCT00253071</a></p

Effect of action-based cognitive remediation on cognition and neural activity in bipolar disorder:Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Cognitive impairment is present in bipolar disorder (BD) during the acute and remitted phases and hampers functional recovery. However, there is currently no clinically available treatment with direct and lasting effects on cognitive impairment in BD. We will examine the effect of a novel form of cognitive remediation, action-based cognitive remediation (ABCR), on cognitive impairment in patients with BD, and explore the neural substrates of potential treatment efficacy on cognition. Methods/design The trial has a randomized, controlled, parallel-group design. In total, 58 patients with BD in full or partial remission aged 18–55 years with objective cognitive impairment will be recruited. Participants are randomized to 10 weeks of ABCR or a control group. Assessments encompassing neuropsychological testing and mood ratings, and questionnaires on subjective cognitive complaints, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life are carried out at baseline, after 2 weeks of treatment, after the end of treatment, and at a six-month-follow-up after treatment completion. Functional magnetic resonance imaging scans are performed at baseline and 2 weeks into treatment. The primary outcome is a cognitive composite score spanning verbal memory, attention, and executive function. Two complete data sets for 52 patients will provide a power of 80% to detect a clinically relevant between-group difference on the primary outcome. Behavioral data will be analyzed using mixed models in SPSS while MRI data will be analyzed with the FMRIB Expert Analysis Tool (FEAT). Early treatment-related changes in neural activity from baseline to week 2 will be investigated for the dorsal prefrontal cortex and hippocampus as the regions of interest and with an exploratory whole-brain analysis. Discussion The results will provide insight into whether ABCR has beneficial effects on cognition and functioning in remitted patients with BD. The results will also provide insight into early changes in neural activity associated with improvement of cognition, which can aid future treatment development. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03295305. Registered on 26 September 2017

Exploring TNFi drug-levels and anti-drug antibodies during tapering among patients with inflammatory arthritis: secondary analyses from the randomised BIODOPT trial

To evaluate tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) drug-levels and presence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb) in patients with inflammatory arthritis who taper TNFi compared to TNFi continuation. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or axial spondyloarthritis on stable TNFi dose and in low disease activity ≥ 12 months were randomised (2:1) to disease activity-guided tapering or control. Blood samples at baseline, 12- and 18-months were evaluated for TNFi drug-levels and ADAb. In total, 129 patients were randomised to tapering (n = 88) or control (n = 41). Between baseline and month 18, a significant shift in TNFi drug-levels were observed in the tapering group resulting in fewer patients with high drug-levels (change: − 14% [95% CI − 27 to − 1%]) and more with low drug-levels (change: 18% [95% CI 5–31%]). Disease activity was equivalent between groups at 18 months, mean difference: RA − 0.06 (95% CI − 0.44 to 0.33), PsA 0.03 (95% CI − 0.36 to 0.42), and axSpA 0.16 (− 0.17 to 0.49), equivalence margins ± 0.5 disease activity points. ADAb were detected in eight patients, all from the tapering group. TNFi drug-level category or ADAb were not predictive for achieving successful tapering at 18 months. TNFi drug-levels decreased during tapering which indicate adherence to the tapering algorithm. Despite the difference in TNFi drug-levels at 18 months, disease activity remained equivalent, and only few tapering patients had detectable ADAb. These data do not support using TNFi drug-level and/or ADAb to guide the tapering decision but future research with larger trials is needed. Trial registration: EudraCT: 2017-001970-41, December 21, 2017