Dataset Information

Brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention with antidepressant reduces poststroke depression significantly more than usual care with antidepressant: living well with stroke: randomized, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Depression after stroke is prevalent, diminishing recovery and quality of life. Brief behavioral intervention, adjunctive to antidepressant therapy, has not been well evaluated for long-term efficacy in those with poststroke depression.One hundred one clinically depressed patients with ischemic stroke within 4 months of index stroke were randomly assigned to an 8-week brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention plus antidepressant or usual care, including antidepressant. The primary end point was reduction in depressive symptom severity at 12 months after entry.Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression raw score in the intervention group was significantly lower immediately posttreatment (P<0.001) and at 12 months (P=0.05) compared with control subjects. Remission (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression <10) was significantly greater immediately posttreatment and at 12 months in the intervention group compared with the usual care control. The mean percent decrease (47%+/-26% intervention versus 32%+/-36% control, P=0.02) and the mean absolute decrease (-9.2+/-5.7 intervention versus -6.2+/-6.4 control, P=0.023) in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at 12 months were clinically important and statistically significant in the intervention group compared with control.A brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention is highly effective in reducing depression in both the short and long term.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2777736 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention with antidepressant reduces poststroke depression significantly more than usual care with antidepressant: living well with stroke: randomized, controlled trial.

Mitchell Pamela H PH Veith Richard C RC Becker Kyra J KJ Buzaitis Ann A Cain Kevin C KC Fruin Michael M Tirschwell David D Teri Linda L

Stroke 20090806 9

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Depression after stroke is prevalent, diminishing recovery and quality of life. Brief behavioral intervention, adjunctive to antidepressant therapy, has not been well evaluated for long-term efficacy in those with poststroke depression.<h4>Methods</h4>One hundred one clinically depressed patients with ischemic stroke within 4 months of index stroke were randomly assigned to an 8-week brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention plus antidepressant or usual care, incl ...[more]

PMID: 19661478

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) is a clinically effective intervention for reducing risk of suicide attempts among suicidal US Army soldiers. However, because specialized treatments can be resource intensive, more information is needed on costs and benefits of BCBT compared with existing treatments. Objective:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BCBT compared with treatment as usual for suicidal soldiers in the US Army. Design, Setting, and Participants:A decision analytic model compared effects and costs of BCBT vs treatment as usual from a US Department of Defense (DoD) perspective. Model input data were drawn from epidemiologic data sets and a clinical trial among suicidal soldiers conducted from January 31, 2011, to April 3, 2014. Data were analyzed from July 3, 2018, to March 25, 2019. Interventions:The strategies compared were treatment as usual alone vs treatment as usual plus 12 individual BCBT sessions. Treatment as usual could include a range of pharmacologic and psychological treatment options. Main Outcomes and Measures:Costs in 2017 US dollars, suicide attempts averted (self-directed behavior with intent to die, but with nonfatal outcome), suicide deaths averted, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, assuming a 2-year time horizon for treatment differences but including lifetime costs. Results:In the base-case analysis, BCBT was expected to avert approximately 23 to 25 more suicide attempts and 1 to 3 more suicide deaths per 100 patients treated than treatment as usual. Sensitivity analyses assuming a range of treatment effects showed BCBT to be cost saving in most scenarios. Using the federal discount rate, the DoD was estimated to save from $15?000 to $16?630 per patient with BCBT vs treatment as usual. In a worst-case scenario (ie, assuming the weakest plausible BCBT effect sizes), BCBT cost an additional $1910 to $2250 per patient compared with treatment as usual. Conclusions and Relevance:Results suggest BCBT may be a cost-saving intervention for suicidal active-duty soldiers. The costs of ensuring treatment fidelity would also need to be considered when assessing the implications of disseminating BCBT across the entire DoD.

Project description:BackgroundThe access to and uptake of evidence-based behavioral parent training for children with behavioral difficulties (i.e., oppositional, defiant, aggressive, hyperactive, impulsive, and inattentive behavior) are currently limited because of a scarcity of certified therapists and long waiting lists. These problems are in part due to the long and sometimes perceived as rigid nature of most evidence-based programs and result in few families starting behavioral parent training and high dropout rates. Brief and individually tailored parenting interventions may reduce these problems and make behavioral parent training more accessible. This protocol paper describes a two-arm, multi-center, randomized controlled trial on the short- and longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a brief, individually tailored behavioral parent training program for children with behavioral difficulties.MethodsParents of children aged 2-12 years referred to a child mental healthcare center are randomized to (i) three sessions of behavioral parent training with optional booster sessions or (ii) care as usual. To evaluate effectiveness, our primary outcome is the mean severity of five daily ratings by parents of four selected behavioral difficulties. Secondary outcomes include measures of parent and child behavior, well-being, and parent-child interaction. We explore whether child and parent characteristics moderate intervention effects. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, the use and costs of mental healthcare and utilities are measured. Finally, parents' and therapists' satisfaction with the brief program are explored. Measurements take place at baseline (T0), one week after the brief parent training, or eight weeks after baseline (in case of care as usual) (T1), and six months (T2) and twelve months (T3) after T1.DiscussionThe results of this trial could have meaningful societal implications for children with behavioral difficulties and their parents. If we find the brief behavioral parent training to be more (cost-)effective than care as usual, it could be used in clinical practice to make parent training more accessible.Trial registrationThe trial is prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05591820) on October 24th, 2022 and updated throughout the trial.

Project description:ContextPrevious studies have found that few chronically depressed patients remit with antidepressant medications alone.ObjectiveTo determine the role of adjunctive psychotherapy in the treatment of chronically depressed patients with less than complete response to an initial medication trial.DesignThis trial compared 12 weeks of (1) continued pharmacotherapy and augmentation with cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP), (2) continued pharmacotherapy and augmentation with brief supportive psychotherapy (BSP), and (3) continued optimized pharmacotherapy (MEDS) alone. We hypothesized that adding CBASP would produce higher rates of response and remission than adding BSP or continuing MEDS alone.SettingEight academic sites.ParticipantsChronically depressed patients with a current DSM-IV-defined major depressive episode and persistent depressive symptoms for more than 2 years.InterventionsPhase 1 consisted of open-label, algorithm-guided treatment for 12 weeks based on a history of antidepressant response. Patients not achieving remission received next-step pharmacotherapy options with or without adjunctive psychotherapy (phase 2). Individuals undergoing psychotherapy were randomized to receive either CBASP or BSP stratified by phase 1 response, ie, as nonresponders (NRs) or partial responders (PRs).Main outcome measuresProportions of remitters, PRs, and NRs and change on Hamilton Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores.ResultsIn all, 808 participants entered phase 1, of which 491 were classified as NRs or PRs and entered phase 2 (200 received CBASP and MEDS, 195 received BSP and MEDS, and 96 received MEDS only). Mean HAM-D scores dropped from 25.9 to 17.7 in NRs and from 15.2 to 9.9 in PRs. No statistically significant differences emerged among the 3 treatment groups in the proportions of phase 2 remission (15.0%), partial response (22.5%), and nonresponse (62.5%) or in changes on HAM-D scores.ConclusionsAlthough 37.5% of the participants experienced partial response or remitted in phase 2, neither form of adjunctive psychotherapy significantly improved outcomes over that of a flexible, individualized pharmacotherapy regimen alone. A longitudinal assessment of later-emerging benefits is ongoing.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to create a rank order of the comparative efficacy and acceptability (risk of all-cause discontinuation) of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression (PSD) by integrating direct and indirect evidence.DesignMultiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsPatients with depression following stroke.Interventions10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD.Outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were the overall efficacy, defined as the mean change of the total depression score. The secondary outcome was the acceptability, defined as risk of all-cause discontinuation. These estimates as standardised mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs.ResultsWe identified 12 suitable trials, with data from 707 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo apart from sertraline, nefiracetam and fluoxetine. Most of the comparisons for acceptability revealed no significant differences except that paroxetine had significantly lower all-cause discontinuation than doxepin, citalopram and fluoxetine. Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for efficacy varied from -6.54 for the best drug (reboxetine) to 0.51 for the worst drug (nefiracetam). ORs compared with placebo for acceptability ranged from 0.09 for the best drug (paroxetine) to 3.42 for the worst drug (citalopram). For the efficacy rank, reboxetine, paroxetine, doxepin and duloxetine were among the most efficacious treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 100%, 85.7%, 83.2%, 62.4%, respectively. With respect to the acceptability rank, paroxetine, placebo, sertraline and nortriptyline were among the most acceptable treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 92.4%, 63.5%, 57.3%, 56.3%.ConclusionAfter weighing the efficacy and acceptability, we conclude that paroxetine might be the best choice when starting acute treatment for PSD, and fluoxetine might be the worst choice.Trial registration numberThis systematic review has been registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Review Protocols (PROSPERO) public database (CRD42017054741; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Project description:ImportanceAnnual preventive health visits provide an opportunity to screen youths for unhealthy substance use and intervene before serious harm results.ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability and estimate the efficacy of a primary care computer-facilitated screening and practitioner-delivered brief intervention (CSBI) system compared with usual care (UC) for youth substance use and associated risk of riding with an impaired driver.Design, setting, and participantsAn intent-to-treat pilot randomized clinical trial compared CSBI with UC among 965 youths aged 12 to 18 years at 5 pediatric primary care offices and 54 practitioners. Patients were randomized to CSBI (n = 628) or usual care (n = 243) groups within practitioner with 12 months of follow-up. Data were collected from February 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Data analysis was performed January 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.InterventionsPatients self-administered a computer-facilitated substance use screening questionnaire before their annual preventive health visits. Immediately after completing the screening, they received their score and level of risk and viewed 10 pages of scientific information and true-life vignettes illustrating health risks associated with substance use. Trained practitioners received the screening results, patients' risk levels, talking points designed to prompt brief counseling, and recommended follow-up plans.Main outcomes and measuresFeasibility and acceptability were assessed using adolescents' postvisit ratings. Days of alcohol use, cannabis use, and heavy episodic drinking were assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups using Timeline Followback, and riding in the past 3 months with a driver who was impaired by use of alcohol or other drugs was assessed using 2 self-report items. The primary outcome was the intervention effect among at-risk youths who reported using alcohol or other drugs in the past 12 months or riding with an impaired driver in the past 3 months at baseline. The secondary outcome was the prevention effect among those with no prior use or risk.ResultsAmong 871 youths screened, 869 completed the baseline assessment; 211 of the 869 reported alcohol or cannabis use in the past 12 months at baseline (mean [SD] age, 16.4 [1.3] years; 114 [54.1%] female; 105 [49.8%] non-Hispanic white). Of the 211 youths, 148 (70.1%) were assigned to the CSBI group and 63 (29.9%) were assigned to the UC group. Among youths in the CSBI group, 105 (70.9%) reported receiving counseling about alcohol, 122 (82.4%) reported receiving counseling about cannabis, and 129 (87.2%) reported receiving counseling about not riding with an impaired driver. Adjusted hazard ratios for time to first postvisit use of alcohol or other drugs for CSBI vs UC were as follows: alcohol use, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.47-1.02); heavy episodic drinking, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.40-1.10); and cannabis use, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.94). At 12-month follow-ups among 99 youths who reported having ridden in the past 3 months at baseline with an impaired driver (64 in the CSBI group; 35 in the UC group), adjusted relative risk ratio of riding in the past 3 months with an impaired driver for CSBI vs UC groups was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.37-0.91). No intervention effect was observed among youths who reported no prior use of alcohol or other drugs (n = 658) or not having ridden with an impaired driver (n = 769) at baseline.Conclusions and relevanceThe CSBI system is a feasible and acceptable option for screening youths in primary care practice for use of alcohol and other drugs and for risk of riding with an impaired driver, and the estimated efficacy in this sample warrants further testing in larger samples.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00227877.

Dataset Information

Brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention with antidepressant reduces poststroke depression significantly more than usual care with antidepressant: living well with stroke: randomized, controlled trial.

Publications

Brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention with antidepressant reduces poststroke depression significantly more than usual care with antidepressant: living well with stroke: randomized, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets