A meta-analysis of two randomised trials of early chemotherapy in asymptomatic metastatic colorectal cancer

This report constitutes a prospectively planned meta-analysis combining two almost identical trials undertaken in Australasia and Canada to study the effect of starting chemotherapy immediately in asymptomatic patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients (n=168) were randomised to receive either immediate or delayed treatment (at onset of predefined symptoms). Australasian patients received either weekly 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (500 and 20 mg m−2, respectively) (n=59) or the daily × 5 Mayo Clinic schedule (425 and 20 mg m−2, respectively) (n=42). Canadian patients were treated with the Mayo schedule (n=67). Otherwise, the two studies were almost identical in design and each used the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 instrument for measuring quality of life (QoL). Treatment was continued until 6 months had elapsed or disease progression occurred. Low accrual led to trial suspension before the predetermined sample size for either study was reached. Median survival was not significantly better with immediate treatment (median 13.0 vs 11.0 months; hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.72; P=0.49). There was no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival (time from randomisation until first evidence of progression after chemotherapy, 10.2 vs 10.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI 0.71–1.64; P=0.73). There was no difference in overall QoL or its individual domains between the two treatment strategies at baseline or at any subsequent time point. Early treatment of asymptomatic patients with metastatic colorectal cancer did not provide a survival benefit or improved QoL compared to withholding treatment until symptoms occurred

Comparative efficacy of the Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy versus Supportive Psychotherapy for early onset chronic depression: design and rationale of a multisite randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Effective treatment strategies for chronic depression are urgently needed since it is not only a common and particularly disabling disorder, but is also considered treatment resistant by most clinicians. There are only a few studies on chronic depression indicating that traditional psycho- and pharmacological interventions are not as effective as in acute, episodic depression. Current medications are no more effective than those introduced 50 years ago whereas the only psychotherapy developed specifically for the subgroup of chronic depression, the Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP), faired well in one large trial. However, CBASP has never been directly compared to a non-specific control treatment.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The present article describes the study protocol of a multisite parallel-group randomized controlled trial in Germany. The purpose of the study is to estimate the efficacy of CBASP compared to supportive psychotherapy in 268 non-medicated early-onset chronically depressed outpatients. The intervention includes 20 weeks of acute treatment with 24 individual sessions followed by 28 weeks of continuation treatment with another 8 sessions. Depressive symptoms are evaluated 20 weeks after randomisation by means of the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale of Depression (HRSD). Secondary endpoints are depressive symptoms after 12 and 48 weeks, and remission after 12, 20, and 48 weeks. Primary outcome will be analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlled for pre-treatment scores and site. Analyses of continuous secondary variables will be performed using linear mixed models. For remission rates, chi-squared tests and logistic regression will be applied.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study evaluates the comparative effects of a disorder-specific psychotherapy and a well designed non-specific psychological approach in the acute and continuation treatment phase in a large sample of early-onset chronically depressed patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov (<a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00970437">NCT00970437</a>).</p

Selective Attention Increases Both Gain and Feature Selectivity of the Human Auditory Cortex

Background. An experienced car mechanic can often deduce what’s wrong with a car by carefully listening to the sound of the ailing engine, despite the presence of multiple sources of noise. Indeed, the ability to select task-relevant sounds for awareness, whilst ignoring irrelevant ones, constitutes one of the most fundamental of human faculties, but the underlying neural mechanisms have remained elusive. While most of the literature explains the neural basis of selective attention by means of an increase in neural gain, a number of papers propose enhancement in neural selectivity as an alternative or a complementary mechanism. Methodology/Principal Findings. Here, to address the question whether pure gain increase alone can explain auditory selective attention in humans, we quantified the auditory cortex frequency selectivity in 20 healthy subjects by masking 1000-Hz tones by continuous noise masker with parametrically varying frequency notches around the tone frequency (i.e., a notched-noise masker). The task of the subjects was, in different conditions, to selectively attend to either occasionally occurring slight increments in tone frequency (1020 Hz), tones of slightly longer duration, or ignore the sounds. In line with previous studies, in the ignore condition, the global field power (GFP) of event-related brain responses at 100 ms from the stimulus onset to the 1000-Hz tones was suppressed as a function of the narrowing of the notch width. During the selective attention conditions, the suppressant effect of the noise notch width on GFP was decreased, but as a function significantly different from a multiplicative one expected on the basis of simple gain model of selective attention. Conclusions/Significance. Our results suggest that auditory selective attention in humans cannot be explained by a gai

Rationale, design and methodology of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of escitalopram in prevention of Depression in Acute Coronary Syndrome (DECARD)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prevalence of depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome, i.e. myocardial infarction and unstable angina, is higher than in the general population. The prevalence of anxiety is higher as well. Both depression and anxiety are associated with poor cardiac outcomes and higher mortality. Comorbid depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome often goes undiagnosed, and it is therefore a challenging task to prevent this risk factor. The study of DEpression in Coronary ARtery Disease (DECARD) is designed to examine if it is possible to prevent depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two hundred forty non-depressed patients with acute coronary syndrome are randomized to treatment with either escitalopram or placebo for 1 year. Psychiatric and cardiac assessment of patients is performed to evaluate the possibility of preventing depression. Diagnosis of depression and Hamilton Depression Scale are the primary outcome measures.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is the first study of prevention of depression in patients after acute coronary syndrome with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><url>http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.</url> Identifier: NCT00140257</p

Depression care management for late-life depression in China primary care: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As a major public health issue in China and worldwide, late-life depression is associated with physical limitations, greater functional impairment, increased utilization and cost of health care, and suicide. Like other chronic diseases in elders such as hypertension and diabetes, depression is a chronic disease that the new National Health Policy of China indicates should be managed in primary care settings. Collaborative care, linking primary and mental health specialty care, has been shown to be effective for the treatment of late-life depression in primary care settings in Western countries. The primary aim of this project is to implement a depression care management (DCM) intervention, and examine its effectiveness on the depressive symptoms of older patients in Chinese primary care settings.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The trial is a multi-site, primary clinic based randomized controlled trial design in Hangzhou, China. Sixteen primary care clinics will be enrolled in and randomly assigned to deliver either DCM or care as usual (CAU) (8 clinics each) to 320 patients (aged ≥ 60 years) with major depression (20/clinic; n = 160 in each treatment condition). In the DCM arm, primary care physicians (PCPs) will prescribe 16 weeks of antidepressant medication according to the treatment guideline protocol. Care managers monitor the progress of treatment and side effects, educate patients/family, and facilitate communication between providers; psychiatrists will provide weekly group psychiatric consultation and CM supervision. Patients in both DCM and CAU arms will be assessed by clinical research coordinators at baseline, 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 months. Depressive symptoms, functional status, treatment stigma and clients' satisfaction will be used to assess patients' outcomes; and clinic practices, attitudes/knowledge, and satisfaction will be providers' outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This will be the first trial of the effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention aiming to the management of late-life depression in China primary care. If effective, its finding will have relevance to policy makers who wish to scale up DCM treatments for late-life depression in national wide primary care across China.</p> <p>Study Registration</p> <p>The DCM project is registered through the National Institutes of Health sponsored by clinical trials registry and has been assigned the identifier: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01287494">NCT01287494</a></p

Vom Sinn des Verfahrenskonzepts und der Verfahrensvielfalt. Und warum das Baukasten-System in der Psychotherapie nicht funktioniert

Fragestellung: In Deutschland sind die geltenden Psychotherapierichtlinien für die ambulanten Behandlungen verfahrensorientiert ausgerichtet und auch die psychotherapeutische Aus- und Weiterbildung erfolgt im deutschen Gesundheitssystem verfahrensbezogen. In letzter Zeit werden jedoch Stimmen laut, die sich gegen die Beibehaltung des Verfahrensbegriffs in der Psychotherapie aussprechen und damit auch die Richtlinien-Psychotherapie in Frage stellen. Ziel: Die vorgebrachten Argumente (z.B. die Heterogenität der Verfahren) sowie die vorgetragenen Alternativen (z.B. ein verfahrens-übergreifendes „integratives“ Störungs- und Therapiemodell nach dem Baukasten-Prinzip) werden kritisch diskutiert. Ergebnisse: Die vorgebrachten Argumente gegen das Konzept der Verfahren und die präsentierten Alternativen erweisen sich unter wissenschaftlichen und psychotherapeutischen Gesichtspunkten als wenig überzeugend. Zum einen wird gezeigt, dass Psychotherapie nach dem Baukasten-Prinzip anhand von störungsspezifischen Methoden oder Modulen „verfahrens-übergreifend“ weder gelernt noch gelehrt oder ausgeübt werden kann. Zum anderen gibt es für eine „allgemeine“ oder „integrative“ Psychotherapie bisher keinerlei Evidenz – im Unterschied zu den Richtlinien-Verfahren. Schlussfolgerungen: Das Konzept der Psychotherapie-Verfahren erweist sich als ein unverzichtbares Orientierungsprinzip sowohl für Therapeuten als auch für Patienten