Quetiapine augmentation of SRIs in treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study [ISRCTN83050762]

BACKGROUND: Although serotonin reuptake inhibitors are effective in the treatment of OCD, many patients fail to respond to these agents. Growing evidence from open-label and placebo-controlled trials suggests a role for augmentation of SRIs with atypical antipsychotics in OCD. Quetiapine is generally well tolerated and previous open-label data has produced mixed results in OCD and additional controlled data is needed. METHODS: We undertook a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine augmentation in subjects who had responded inadequately to open-label treatment with an SRI for 12 weeks. Following informed consent and screening, forty-two subjects were randomised to either placebo or quetiapine for six weeks. RESULTS: There was significant improvement from baseline to endpoint on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale in both the quetiapine and placebo groups (quetiapine, n = 20, p < 0.0001; placebo, n = 21, p = 0.001) with 40% (n = 8) of quetiapine and 47.6% (n = 10) of placebo treated subjects being classified as responders. Quetiapine did not demonstrate a significant benefit over placebo at the end of the six-week treatment period (p = .636). Similarly quetiapine failed to separate from placebo in the subgroup of subjects (n = 10) with co-morbid tics. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, quetiapine augmentation was no more effective than placebo augmentation of SRIs. A number of limitations in study design make comparisons with previous studies in this area difficult and probably contributed to our negative findings. Future work in this important clinical area should address these limitations

Internet-based search of randomised trials relevant to mental health originating in the Arab world

BACKGROUND: The internet is becoming a widely used source of accessing medical research through various on-line databases. This instant access to information is of benefit to busy clinicians and service users around the world. The population of the Arab World is comparable to that of the United States, yet it is widely believed to have a greatly contrasting output of randomised controlled trials related to mental health. This study was designed to investigate the existence of such research in the Arab World and also to investigate the availability of this research on-line. METHODS: Survey of findings from three internet-based potential sources of randomised trials originating from the Arab world and relevant to mental health care. RESULTS: A manual search of an Arabic online current contents service identified 3 studies, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO searches identified only 1 study, and a manual search of a specifically indexed, study-based mental health database, PsiTri, revealed 27 trials. CONCLUSION: There genuinely seem to be few trials from the Arab world and accessing these on-line was problematic. Replication of some studies that guide psychiatric/psychological practice in the Arab world would seem prudent

Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder: A pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is widely regarded as an effective treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), but access to CBT therapists is limited. Internet-based CBT (ICBT) with therapist support is a way to increase access to CBT but has not been developed or tested for OCD. The aim of this study was to evaluate ICBT for OCD.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>An open trial where patients (N = 23) received a 15-week ICBT program with therapist support consisting of psychoeducation, cognitive restructuring and exposure with response prevention. The primary outcome was the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), which was assessed by a psychiatrist before and immediately after treatment. Secondary outcomes were self-rated measures of OCD symptoms, depressive symptoms, general functioning, anxiety and quality of life. All assessments were made at baseline and post-treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All participants completed the primary outcome measure at all assessment points. There were reductions in OCD symptoms with a large within-group effect size (Cohen's <it>d </it>= 1.56). At post-treatment, 61% of participants had a clinically significant improvement and 43% no longer fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of OCD. The treatment also resulted in statistically significant improvements in self-rated OCD symptoms, general functioning and depression.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>ICBT with therapist support reduces OCD symptoms, depressive symptoms and improves general functioning. Randomized trials are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this new treatment format.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01348529">NCT01348529</a></p

Exposure-in-vivo containing interventions to improve work functioning of workers with anxiety disorder: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anxiety disorders are associated with functional disability, sickness absence, and decreased productivity. Effective treatments of anxiety disorders can result in remission of symptoms. However the effects on work related outcomes are largely unknown. Exposure in vivo is potentially well fit to improve work-related outcomes. This study systematically reviews the effectiveness of exposure-in-vivo containing interventions in reducing work-related adverse outcomes in workers with anxiety disorders.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic study search was conducted in Medline, Cinahl, Embase and Psycinfo. Two reviewers independently extracted data and from each study assessed the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach. We performed a meta-analysis if data showed sufficient clinical homogeneity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven studies containing 11 exposure-in-vivo interventions were included. Four studies were focused on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), two on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and one on a mixed group of OCD and severe phobias. The studies were grouped according to type of anxiety disorder and subsequently according to type of comparisons. For OCD, exposure-in-vivo containing interventions can yield better work-related outcomes compared to medication (SSRIs) and relaxation but not better compared to response prevention. The results on anxiety outcomes were similar. The net contribution of exposure in vivo in two OCD intervention programs is also presented as a meta-analysis and shows significant positive results on work role limitations. The calculated pooled effect size with 95% confidence interval was 0.72 (0.28, 1.15). For PTSD, exposure-in-vivo containing interventions can yield better work-related and anxiety-related outcomes compared to a waiting-list but not better compared to imaginal exposure.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Exposure in vivo as part of an anxiety treatment can reduce work-related adverse outcomes in workers with OCD and PTSD better than various other anxiety treatments or a waiting-list. We recommend that it should be studied how the results of these studies can be transferred to the practice of occupational health professionals and how clinicians can make better use of them to improve work-related outcomes. In future research, priority should be given to high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which exposure-in-vivo containing interventions are applied to a variety of anxiety disorders and compared with other clinical anxiety treatments such as SSRIs. Work-related outcomes, in particular work functioning and sickness absence, need to be assessed with reliable and valid measures.</p

Therapeutic emails

BACKGROUND: In this paper, we show how counselors and psychologists can use emails for online management of substance abusers, including the anatomy and content of emails that clinicians should send substance abusers. Some investigators have attempted to determine if providing mental health services online is an efficacious delivery of treatment. The question of efficacy is an empirical issue that cannot be settled unless we are explicitly clear about the content and nature of online treatment. We believe that it is not the communications via internet that matters, but the content of these communications. The purpose of this paper is to provide the content of our online counseling services so others can duplicate the work and investigate its efficacy. RESULTS: We have managed nearly 300 clients online for recovery from substance abuse. Treatment included individual counseling (motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavior therapy, relapse prevention assignments), participation in an electronic support group and the development of a recovery team. Our findings of success with these interventions are reported elsewhere. Our experience has led to development of a protocol of care that is described more fully in this paper. This protocol is based on stages of change and relapse prevention theories and follows a Motivational Interviewing method of counseling. CONCLUSION: The use of electronic media in providing mental health treatment remains controversial due to concerns about confidentiality, security and legal considerations. More research is needed to validate and generalize the use of online treatment for mental health problems. If researchers have to build on each others work, it is paramount that we share our protocols of care, as we have done in this paper

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an exposure-based return-to-work programme for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders: design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To reduce the duration of sick leave and loss of productivity due to common mental disorders (CMDs), we developed a return-to-work programme to be provided by occupational physicians (OPs) based on the principles of exposure in vivo (RTW-E programme). This study evaluates this programme's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness by comparing it with care as usual (CAU). The three research questions we have are: 1) Is an RTW-E programme more effective in reducing the sick leave of employees with common mental disorders, compared with care as usual? 2) Is an RTW-E programme more effective in reducing sick leave for employees with anxiety disorders compared with employees with other common mental disorders? 3) From a societal perspective, is an RTW-E programme cost-effective compared with care as usual?</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>This study was designed as a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up and randomization on the level of OPs. We aimed for 60 OPs in order to include 200 patients. Patients in the intervention group received the RTW-E programme. Patients in the control group received care as usual. Eligible patients had been on sick leave due to common mental disorders for at least two weeks and no longer than eight weeks. As primary outcome measures, we calculated the time until full return to work and the duration of sick leave. Secondary outcome measures were time until partial return to work, prevalence rate of sick leave at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months' follow-up, and scores of symptoms of distress, anxiety, depression, somatization, and fatigue; work capacity; perceived working conditions; self-efficacy for return to work; coping behaviour; avoidance behaviour; patient satisfaction; and work adaptations. As process measures, we used indices of compliance with the intervention in the intervention group and employee-supervisor communication in both groups. Economic costs were calculated from a societal perspective. The total costs consisted of the costs of consuming health care, costs of production loss due to sick leave and reduced productivity, and out-of-pocket costs of patients for travelling to their OP.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results will be published in 2009. The strengths and weaknesses of the study protocol are discussed.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN72643128</p

Duloxetine compared with fluoxetine and venlafaxine: use of meta-regression analysis for indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND: Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions. METHODS: The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run. RESULTS: 22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine