Developing a brief tele-psychotherapy model for COVID-19 patients and their family members

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic is negatively impacting the mental health of COVID-19 patients and family members. Given the restrictions limiting in person contact to reduce the spread of the virus, a digital approach is needed to tackle the psychological aftermath of the pandemic. We present the development of a brief remote psychotherapy program for COVID-19 patients and/or their relatives. Methods: We first reviewed the literature on psychotherapeutic interventions for COVID-19 related symptoms. Based on this evidence, we leveraged ongoing clinical experiences with COVID-19 survivors and family members to design an intervention model that could be disseminated and integrated into the workflow of the mental health system. Results: This 8-session model -inspired by constructivist and hermeneutic-phenomenological therapies- serves COVID-19 patients during hospitalization, remission and recovery. This model can also be delivered to people dealing with the COVID-19 hospitalization/discharge of a family member, or the loss of a family member due to COVID-19. Conclusion: We described a remote psychotherapeutic approach to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic psychological aftermath. To date, the approach seems feasible and highly customizable to patients' needs. Studies are underway to test its preliminary efficacy. Once proven efficacious, this treatment model could provide a blueprint for future tele-psychology wide-scale interventions

Psychotherapeutic and Psychiatric Intervention in Patients With COVID-19 and Their Relatives: Protocol for the DigiCOVID Trial

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is negatively impacting the mental health of both patients with COVID-19 and the general population. As current guidelines are limiting in-person contacts to reduce the spread of the virus, the development of a digital approach to implement in psychiatric and psychological consultations is needed. In this paper, we present the DigiCOVID protocol, a digital approach to offer remote, personalized psychological and psychiatric support to former or current patients with COVID-19 and their relatives. ObjectiveThe main goal of this project is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of the DigiCOVID protocol. Furthermore, we also aim to assess the impact of the abovementioned protocol by means of pre-post changes in psychological clinical variables. MethodsParticipants undergo an initial telephonic screening to ensure inclusion criteria are met. Secondly, participants complete a video-assisted neuropsychological IQ test as well as web-based self-reports of health and general well-being. Participants are then assigned to a psychotherapist who offers 8 teletherapy sessions. At the end of the therapy cycle, the web-based questionnaires are administered for a posttreatment evaluation. ResultsAs of April 2022, we enrolled a total of 122 participants, of which 94 have completed neuropsychological tests and web-based questionnaires. ConclusionsOur study aims at testing the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of DigiCOVID, a remote telemedicine protocol for the improvement of psychological and psychiatric health in patients with COVID-19 and their relatives. To date, the approach used seems to be feasible and highly customizable to patients’ needs, and therefore, the DigiCOVID protocol might pave the way for future telepsychiatry-based interventions. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05231018; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05231018?term=NCT05231018 &draw=2&rank=1 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/3908

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of brief tele-psychotherapy for COVID-19 patients and their first-degree relatives

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic compromised the mental health of COVID-19 patients and their family members. Due to social distancing and lockdown measures, a remote, tele-psychotherapy program for former or current COVID-19 patients and their relatives was implemented. Objective: The primary goal of this project was to evaluate intervention feasibility. The secondary aim was to assess the impact of the intervention by means of pre-post psychological changes. Methods: After a phone-based eligibility screening and remote neuropsychological testing, participants completed online self-reports assessing baseline COVID-related psychopathology. Next, participants attended eight tele-psychotherapy sessions. After treatment, the online self-reports were completed again. Results: Of 104 enrolled participants, 88 completed the intervention (84.6 % completion rate). Significant pre-post improvements were observed for generalized anxiety (d = 0.38), depression (d = 0.37), insomnia (d = 0.43), post-traumatic psychopathology (d = 0.54), and general malaise (d = 0.31). Baseline cluster analysis revealed a subgroup of 41 subjects (47.6 %) with no psychopathology, and a second subgroup of 45 subject (52.3 %) with moderate severity. Thirty-three percent of the second group reached full symptom remission, while 66 % remained symptomatic after treatment. Conclusions: Remote brief tele-psychotherapy for COVID-19 patients and their first-degree relatives is feasible and preliminary efficacious at reducing COVID-related psychopathology in a subgroup of patients. Further research is needed to investigate distinct profiles of treatment response

Rituximab is a safe and effective long-term treatment for children with steroid and calcineurin inhibitor–dependent idiopathic nephrotic syndrome

In children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome rituximab can maintain short-term remission with withdrawal of prednisone and calcineurin-inhibitors. Long-term effects including number of repeated infusions to maintain remission are unknown. We treated with rituximab 46 consecutive children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome lasting for at least one year (6.3±4.1 years), who were maintained in remission with oral prednisone and calcineurin inhibitors. They received 1–5 rituximab courses during a median follow-up of three years (range 1–5). Oral agents were tapered after each infusion, and completely withdrawn within 45 days. Rituximab was well tolerated. Six-month probabilities of remission were 48% after the first infusion and 37% after subsequent infusions. One- and two-year-remission probabilities were respectively 20% and 10%. Median time intervals between complete oral-agent withdrawal and relapse were 5.6 and 8.5 months respectively following the first and subsequent courses. Time to reconstitution of CD20 cells correlated with the duration of remission, but was not associated with variation in FcyR, CD20 or SMPDL-3B polymorphisms. Podocyte Src phosphorylation was normal. Rituximab can be safely and repeatedly used as prednisone and calcineurin-inhibitor-sparing therapy in a considerable proportion of children with dependent forms of idiopathic nephrotic syndrome. Further research is needed to identify patients who will benefit most from rituximab therapy

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p