57 research outputs found
Weight Gain With Clozapine Compared to First Generation Antipsychotic Medications
Abstract Few studies have examined gender differences in the propensity to gain weight on clozapine. Weight gain increases risk for many medical illnesses and is of particular concern for people with schizophrenia who are more overweight than the general population. Longstay patients in Connecticut state hospitals were randomly assigned to switch to open-label treatment with clozapine (n = 138) or to continue receiving first generation (conventional) antipsychotic medications (n = 89). Using survival and random regression models, we examined percentage of body weight gained during 2 years for patients assigned to clozapine versus those who continued taking first generation antipsychotic medications. We also examined the impact of gender on weight gain. Patients who switched to clozapine gained a greater percentage of weight (13 pounds, 7%) than did patients remaining on first generation medications (5 pounds, 4%) at the end of 2 years. Normalweight patients on clozapine were more likely to become obese (body mass index [BMI] ^ 30). Patients gained weight whether they switched to clozapine or remained on first generation antipsychotic medications, but weight gain was significantly greater (1 BMI unit) in the clozapine-treated group, particularly among women
Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US national institutes of health-funded trials
Background The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. Methods and Findings We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972â2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedgesâ g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. Conclusion The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression
Understanding how education/support groups help lone mothers
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Lone-mother led families are at increased risk of psychosocial disadvantage, social isolation and mental health morbidity. Community-based programs are more accessible for families seeking assistance. We examine the experiences of eight lone mothers participating in a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a community-based education/support group program using mixed methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A purposeful sample of eight mothers participating in the intervention arm of an RCT of community-based support/education groups was selected for the qualitative study. Individual interviews asked mothers about themselves and their relationships with their children before and after the group. Interviews were taped, transcribed and content analysis was used to code and interpret the data. Quantitative data collected in the RCT were used to describe these mothers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mothers participating in the RCT and qualitative study experienced multiple difficulties, including financial and mood problems. These mothers reported that before participating in the group, they had shared experiences of social isolation, stigma, a sense of failure, poor relationships with their children and difficulties with financial management. After the group, mothers identified improved self-esteem, support from other mothers, improved parenting skills and improved communication with their children as outcomes of group participation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The qualitative data revealed mothers' perceptions of specific areas that improved by participating in the group. The utility of complementary information provided by qualitative and quantitative methods in understanding program impact, as well as the need for broader assistance is noted.</p
Recommended from our members
Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (nâ=â143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (nâ=â152), or no hydrocortisone (nâ=â108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (nâ=â137), shock-dependent (nâ=â146), and no (nâ=â101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707
Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world
Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality.
Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States.
Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis.
Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection
Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 nonâcritically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).
INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (nâ=â257), ARB (nâ=â248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; nâ=â10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; nâ=â264) for up to 10 days.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ supportâfree days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.
RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ supportâfree days among critically ill patients was 10 (â1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (nâ=â231), 8 (â1 to 17) in the ARB group (nâ=â217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (nâ=â231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ supportâfree days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570
Preliminary Experience with Subcutaneous Human Ovarian Cortex Transplantation in the NOD-SCID Mouse1
Factors associated with non-completion in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of olanzapine plus sertraline versus olanzapine plus placebo for psychotic depression
High rates of attrition have been reported in randomized controlled trials of patients with severe psychiatric illness, including psychotic depression (MDpsy). The purpose of this study is to examine factors associated with overall attrition and with subtypes of attrition in the Study of the Pharmacotherapy of Psychotic Depression (STOP-PD). Secondary analysis of data collected in a multi-site, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Clinical services of academic hospitals. Participants comprised 259 persons with MDpsy, aged 18-93 years. The intervention consisted of the random allocation to 12 weeks of treatment of either olanzapine plus sertraline or olanzapine plus placebo. Demographic and clinical variables associated with overall non-completion and sub-types of non-completion of randomized treatment. One hundred and seventeen (45.2%) subjects did not complete 12 weeks of randomized treatment. In a logistic regression analysis, inpatient entry status, olanzapine monotherapy, and higher cumulative medical burden were statistically significant independent predictors of overall non-completion. In a multinomial logistic regression model that examined predictors of subtypes of non-completion, subjects who entered the study as an inpatient were less likely to complete because of inadequate efficacy as determined by the investigator, and older subjects were less likely to complete because of poorer tolerability. Subjects who were assigned to olanzapine monotherapy, younger subjects, and subjects who entered the study as inpatients were less likely to complete because of reasons other than efficacy or tolerability. Understanding factors that contribute to premature discontinuation in studies of MDpsy, and to the specific reasons for attrition, has the potential to improve the management of this disorder, as well as improve the design of future clinical trials of MDpsy
- âŠ