Dataset Information

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: a protocol for a randomised, independent, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Data on therapeutic interventions following deliberate self harm (DSH) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are very scant and there is no unanimous consensus on the best pharmacological option for these patients. There is some evidence that lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of completed suicide in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, however no clear cut results have been found so far. The primary aim of the present study is to assess whether adding lithium to standard therapy is an effective treatment strategy to reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour in long term treatment of people with TRD and previous history of DSH.We will carry out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode will be allocated to add lithium to current therapy (intervention arm) or not (control arm). Following randomisation, treatment is to be taken daily for 1 year unless some clear reason to stop develops. Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up will constitute the composite primary outcome. To preserve outcome assessor blindness, an independent adjudicating committee, blind to treatment allocation, will anonymously review all outcome events.The results of this study should indicate whether lithium treatment is associated with lower risk of completed suicide and DSH in adult patients with treatment resistant unipolar depression, who recently attempted suicide.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.

SUBMITTER: Cipriani A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3751729 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: a protocol for a randomised, independent, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial.

Cipriani Andrea A Girlanda Francesca F Agrimi Emilia E Barichello Andrea A Beneduce Rossella R Bighelli Irene I Bisoffi Giulia G Bisogno Alfredo A Bortolaso Paola P Boso Marianna M Calandra Carmela C Cascone Liliana L Corbascio Caterina C Parise Vincenzo Fricchione VF Gardellin Francesco F Gennaro Daniele D Hanife Batul B Lintas Camilla C Lorusso Marina M Luchetta Chiara C Lucii Claudio C Cernuto Francesco F Tozzi Fiorella F Marsilio Alessandra A Maio Francesca F Mattei Chiara C Moretti Daniele D Appino Maria Grazia MG Nosè Michela M Occhionero Guglielmo G Papanti Duccio D Pecile Damiano D Purgato Marianna M Prestia Davide D Restaino Francesco F Sciarma Tiziana T Ruberto Alessandra A Strizzolo Stefania S Tamborini Stefania S Todarello Orlando O Ziero Simona S Zotos Spyridon S Barbui Corrado C

BMC psychiatry 20130813

<h4>Background</h4>Data on therapeutic interventions following deliberate self harm (DSH) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are very scant and there is no unanimous consensus on the best pharmacological option for these patients. There is some evidence that lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of completed suicide in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, however no clear cut results have been found so far. The primary aim of the present study ...[more]

PMID: 23941474

Similar Datasets

Project description:As lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of deliberate self-harm (DSH) in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, we designed a pragmatic randomised trial to assess its efficacy in more than 200 patients with treatment-resistant depression. However, we randomised 56 patients only. The aim of this report is therefore twofold: first, to disseminate the results of this underpowered study which may be incorporated into future meta-analytical reviews; second, to analyse some critical aspects of the study which might explain failure to reach the target sample size.We carried out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode were allocated to add lithium to usual care (intervention arm) versus usual care alone (control arm). Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up constituted the composite primary outcome.Of 58 patients screened for inclusion, 29 were allocated to lithium plus usual care and 27 were assigned to usual care without lithium. Six patients in the lithium plus usual care group and seven in the usual care group committed acts of DSH during the follow-up phase. The survival probability did not differ between the two treatment arms (Chi2 = 0.17, p =0.676). With regard to changes in the severity of depressive symptomatology from baseline to endpoint, no significant differences were detected.The present study failed to achieve the minimum sample size needed to detect a clinically meaningful difference between the two treatment arms. Consequently, the finding that lithium, in addition to usual care, did not exert a positive effect in terms of reduction of DSH after 12 months of follow-up is likely due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference, if a difference existed. The dissemination of the results of this underpowered study will inform future meta-analytical reviews on lithium and suicide-related outcomes.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is limited by concerns about its cognitive adverse effects. Preliminary evidence suggests that administering the glutamate antagonist ketamine with ECT might alleviate cognitive adverse effects and accelerate symptomatic improvement; we tested this in a randomised trial of low-dose ketamine.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study in 11 ECT suites serving inpatient and outpatient care settings in seven National Health Service trusts in the North of England, we recruited severely depressed patients, who were diagnosed as having unipolar or bipolar depressive episodes defined as moderate or severe by DSM-IV criteria, aged at least 18 years, and were able and willing to provide written consent to participate in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ketamine (0·5 mg/kg intravenous bolus) or saline adjunctive to the anaesthetic for the duration of their ECT course. Patients and assessment and ECT treatment teams were masked to treatment allocation, although anaesthetists administering the study medication were not. We analysed the primary outcome, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised delayed verbal recall (HVLT-R-DR) after four ECT treatments, using a Gaussian repeated measures model in all patients receiving the first ECT treatment. In the same population, safety was assessed by adverse effect monitoring. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, number ISRCTN14689382.FindingsBetween early December, 2012, and mid-June, 2015, 628 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 79 were randomly assigned to treatment (40 in the ketamine group vs 39 in the saline group). Ketamine (mean 5·17, SD 2·92), when compared with saline (5·54, 3·42), had no benefit on the primary outcome (HVLT-R-DR; difference in means -0·43 [95% CI -1·73 to 0·87]). 15 (45%) of 33 ketamine-treated patients compared with 10 (27%) of 37 patients receiving saline experienced at least one adverse event which included two (6%) of 33 patients who had ketamine-attributable transient psychological effects. Psychiatric adverse events were the most common in both groups (six [27%] of 22 adverse events in the ketamine group vs seven [54%] of 13 in the saline group).InterpretationNo evidence of benefit for ketamine was found although the sample size used was small; however, the results excluded greater than a small to moderate benefit with 95% confidence. The results do not support the use of adjunctive low-dose ketamine in routine ECT treatment.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership.

Project description:IntroductionDepression is a highly prevalent condition in the elderly, with a vast impact on quality of life, life expectancy, and medical outcomes. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed agents in this condition and, although generally safe, tolerability issues cannot be overlooked. Vortioxetine is an antidepressant with a novel mechanism of action. Based on studies to date, it may have a promising tolerability profile in the elderly, as it does not adversely affect psychomotor or cognitive performance and does not alter cardiovascular and endocrine parameters. The present study aims to assess the tolerability profile of vortioxetine in comparison with the SSRIs considered as a single group in elderly participants with depression. The rate of participants withdrawing from treatment due to adverse events after 6 months of follow up will be the primary outcome.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority, randomized trial funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA - Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco). Thirteen Italian Community Psychiatric Services will consecutively enrol elderly participants suffering from an episode of major depression over a period of 12 months. Participants will be assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months of follow up. At each time point, the following validated rating scales will be administered: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC), EuroQual 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Blessed Test (SBT), and Charlson Age-Comorbidity Index (CACI). Outcome assessors and the statistician will be masked to treatment allocation. A total of 358 participants (179 in each group) will be enrolled.Ethics and disseminationThis study will fully adhere to the ICH E6 Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Participants' data will be managed and safeguarded according to the European Data Protection Regulation 2016/679. An external Ethical Advisory Board will help guarantee high ethical standards.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT03779789 , Registered on 19 December 2018. Submitted on 19 December. EudraCT number: 2018-001444-66.Trial statusProtocol version 1.5; 09/06/2018. Recruitment started In February 2019 and it is ongoing. It is expected to end approximately on 30 September 2021.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depressive symptoms are common in individuals suffering from severe somatic conditions. There is a lack of interventions and evidence-based interventions aiming to reduce depressive symptoms in patients with severe somatic conditions. The aim of the NEVERMIND project is to address these issues and provide evidence by testing the NEVERMIND system, designed to reduce and prevent depressive symptoms in comparison to treatment as usual. METHODS:The NEVERMIND study is a parallel-groups, pragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of the NEVERMIND system in reducing depressive symptoms among individuals with severe somatic conditions. The NEVERMIND system comprises a smart shirt and a user interface, in the form of a mobile application. The system is a real-time decision support system, aiming to predict the severity and onset of depressive symptoms by modelling the well-being condition of patients based on physiological data, body movement, and the recurrence of social interactions. The study includes 330 patients who have a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, breast cancer, prostate cancer, kidney failure, or lower limb amputation. Participants are randomised in blocks of ten to either the NEVERMIND intervention or treatment as usual as the control group. Clinical interviews and structured questionnaires are administered at baseline, at 12?weeks, and 24?weeks to assess whether the NEVERMIND system is superior to treatment as usual. The endpoint of primary interest is Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) at 12?weeks defined as (i) the severity of depressive symptoms as measured by the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes include prevention of the onset of depressive symptoms, changes in quality of life, perceived stigma, and self-efficacy. DISCUSSION:There is a lack of evidence-based interventions aiming to reduce and prevent depressive symptoms in patients with severe somatic conditions. If the NEVERMIND system is effective, it will provide healthcare systems with a novel and innovative method to attend to depressive symptoms in patients with severe somatic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:DRKS00013391. Registered 23 November 2017.

Project description:BackgroundBrace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists.Methods and analysisA multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions.Ethics and disseminationNorth West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN28555470.

Project description:IntroductionThe emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions.Methods and analysisInternational, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm).Ethics and disseminationThis study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles.Trial registration numberNCT04293146.

Project description:BackgroundArthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression.MethodsWe did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011.FindingsBetween Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference -1·3 points (95% CI -3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5-5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8-6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group).InterpretationSurgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process.FundingArthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: a protocol for a randomised, independent, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial.

Publications

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: a protocol for a randomised, independent, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets