Update to the study protocol, including statistical analysis plan for a randomized clinical trial comparing comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery with control: the CopenHeartVR trial

Comparative StudyRandomized Controlled TrialThis is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Heart valve diseases are common with an estimated prevalence of 2.5% in the Western world. The number is rising because of an ageing population. Once symptomatic, heart valve diseases are potentially lethal, and heavily influence daily living and quality of life. Surgical treatment, either valve replacement or repair, remains the treatment of choice. However, post-surgery, the transition to daily living may become a physical, mental and social challenge. We hypothesize that a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation program can improve physical capacity and self-assessed mental health and reduce hospitalization and healthcare costs after heart valve surgery. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial, CopenHeartVR, aims to investigate whether cardiac rehabilitation in addition to usual care is superior to treatment as usual after heart valve surgery. The trial will randomly allocate 210 patients 1:1 to an intervention or a control group, using central randomization, and blinded outcome assessment and statistical analyses. The intervention consists of 12 weeks of physical exercise and a psycho-educational intervention comprising five consultations. The primary outcome is peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing with ventilatory gas analysis. The secondary outcome is self-assessed mental health measured by the standardized questionnaire Short Form-36. Long-term healthcare utilization and mortality as well as biochemistry, echocardiography and cost-benefit will be assessed. A mixed-method design will be used to evaluate qualitative and quantitative findings, encompassing a survey-based study before the trial and a qualitative pre- and post-intervention study. CONCLUSION: This randomized clinical trial will contribute with evidence of whether cardiac rehabilitation should be provided after heart valve surgery. The study is approved by the local regional Research Ethics Committee (H-1-2011-157), and the Danish Data Protection Agency (j.nr. 2007-58-0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered 16 March 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01558765 ).This work is supported by the Strategic Research Council, The Heart Centre Research Foundation Rigshospitalet, Familien Hede Nielsens Fond, The Regional Research Council of Region Sealand (Denmark), The National Institute of Public Health, and the University of Southern Denmark

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the Danish Palliative care trial (DanPaCT)

Acknowledgements We wish to thank the students who sent out the questionnaires, who entered and compared all data, help with data management, made material blind to the investigators, and were/will be outcome assessors of interventions given. They were: Nicla Rohde Christensen, Ellen Lundorff, Marc Klee Olsen, Charlotte Lund Rasmussen, and Nete Skjødt. This work was funded by the Tryg Foundation [journal number 7-10-0838A] and the Danish Cancer Society [journal number R16-A695]. Other than funding the trial, the funding body had no role in the design, conduct, analysis, or reporting of the present trial.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The Effects of Cognitive Therapy versus ‘No Intervention’ for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P = 0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy 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 eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; P<0.007, no heterogeneity)). However, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects model on the data from the Beck Depression Inventory (mean difference with both models -1.57 (95% CL -4.30 to 1.16; P = 0.26, I(2) = 0) could not confirm the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression results. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis on both the data from Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Becks Depression Inventory showed that insufficient data have been obtained. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed

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

Illness management and recovery (IMR) in Danish community mental health centres

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses that can have a significant disabling impact on the lives of people. Psychosocial interventions that stress hope and recovery as a part of a multi-dimensional approach are possibly indicated to support people with severe mental illness in facilitating recovery. Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based psychosocial intervention designed as structured program with a recovery-oriented approach. The aim of IMR is to rehabilitate people with severe mental illnesses by helping them acquire knowledge and skills in managing their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. Previous randomised clinical trials indicate that IMR can be implemented with a good effect and a high fidelity though further trials are crucial to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of IMR.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The trial design is a randomised, assessor-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual for 200 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder under the care of two community mental health centres in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is level of functioning at the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes are disease symptoms; use of alcohol/drugs; individual meaning of recovery; hope; hospital admissions and out-patient psychiatric treatment at the end of treatment and the abovementioned and level of functioning at follow-up 21 months after baseline.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If the results of this trial show IMR to be effective these positive results will strengthen the evidence of IMR as an effective comprehensive psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach for people with severe mental illness. This will have significant implications for the treatment and recovery of people with severe mental illness.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Registration number <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01361698">NCT01361698</a>.</p