Dataset Information

Cognitive behavioural therapy in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (FOCUS): an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although clozapine is the treatment of choice for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, 30-40% of patients have an insufficient response, and others are unable to tolerate it. Evidence for any augmentation strategies is scarce. We aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia.

Methods

We did a pragmatic, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in community-based and inpatient mental health services in five sites in the UK. Patients with schizophrenia who were unable to tolerate clozapine, or whose symptoms did not respond to the drug, were randomly assigned 1:1 by use of randomised-permuted blocks of size four or six, stratified by centre, to either CBT plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assistants were masked to allocation to protect against rater bias and allegiance bias. The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months, which provides a continuous measure of symptoms of schizophrenia; PANSS total was also assessed at the end of treatment (9 months). The primary analysis was by randomised treatment based on intention to treat, for all patients for whom data were available. This study was prospectively registered, number ISRCTN99672552. The trial is closed to accrual.

Findings

From Jan 1, 2013, to May 31, 2015, we randomly assigned 487 participants to either CBT and treatment as usual (n=242) or treatment as usual alone (n=245). Analysis included 209 in the CBT group and 216 in the treatment as usual group. No difference occurred in the primary outcome (PANSS total at 21 months, mean difference -0·89, 95% CI -3·32 to 1·55; p=0·48), although the CBT group improved at the end of treatment (PANSS total at 9 months, mean difference -2·40, -4·79 to -0·02; p=0·049). During the trial, 107 (44%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and 104 (42%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had at least one adverse event (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·81 to 1·46; p=0·58). Only two (1%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and one (<1%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had a trial-related serious adverse event.

Interpretation

At 21-month follow-up, CBT did not have a lasting effect on total symptoms of schizophrenia compared with treatment as usual; however, CBT produced statistically, though not clinically, significant improvements on total symptoms by the end of treatment. There was no indication that the addition of CBT to treatment as usual caused adverse effects. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer CBT to all people who meet criteria for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia; however, a pragmatic individual trial might be indicated for some.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.

SUBMITTER: Morrison AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6063993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough clozapine is the most effective antipsychotic drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, it leads to a poor or partial response in 40 to 70% of patients. Augmentation of clozapine with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a highly effective and relatively safe treatment for these clozapine-resistant patients. However, parameters are not yet well specified, such as the optimal number of sessions, their frequency, and the relevance of maintenance ECT. Our objective is to compare the efficacy and tolerance between two protocols of combined ECT and clozapine treatment in patients with ultra-resistant schizophrenia (URS): a 6-month protocol (short protocol with 20 ECT sessions) and a 12-month protocol (long protocol with 40 ECT sessions).MethodsSixty-four patients with schizophrenia with persistent psychotic symptoms despite clozapine treatment will be enrolled in a prospective multicentric assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients will be randomly assigned to the short or the long protocol. The main outcome is the response rate assessed by the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) 3 months after the end of the treatment in patients following the long protocol compared to those following the short protocol. The response was defined as a 30% reduction on the PANSS baseline. Clinical assessments (PANSS, BPRS, HAMD-21, YMRS, CGI, GAF, Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS), and Subjective Scale to Investigate Cognition in Schizophrenia (SSTICS)) and plasma clozapine concentration will be performed at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months. Neuropsychological measures (MMSE, RL/RI-16, Doors test, D2 Test of Attention, Copy of the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure) will be performed at baseline and at 6 and 15 months.DiscussionThe aims of this research are to optimize protocols of combined ECT with clozapine in patients with URS and to offer specific recommendations for these patients' care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03542903 . Registered on May 31, 2018. Id RCB: 2017-A02657-46.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation alone and in combination with cognitive behavioural management in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.DesignDouble blind parallel group randomised controlled trial with six months' follow-up conducted May 2011-March 2013. Participants, physiotherapists, assessors, and analyses were blinded to group allocation.SettingInterdisciplinary chronic pain centre.Participants135 participants with non-specific chronic low back pain >12 weeks were recruited from 225 patients assessed for eligibility.InterventionParticipants were randomised to receive anodal (20 minutes to motor cortex at 2 mA) or sham transcranial direct current stimulation (identical electrode position, stimulator switched off after 30 seconds) for five consecutive days immediately before cognitive behavioural management (four week multidisciplinary programme of 80 hours).Main outcomes measuresTwo primary outcome measures of pain intensity (0-100 visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry disability index) were evaluated at two primary endpoints after stimulation and after cognitive behavioural management.ResultsAnalyses of covariance with baseline values (pain or disability) as covariates showed that transcranial direct current stimulation was ineffective for the reduction of pain (difference between groups on visual analogue scale 1 mm (99% confidence interval -8.69 mm to 6.3 mm; P=0.68)) and disability (difference between groups 1 point (-1.73 to 1.98; P=0.86)) and did not influence the outcome of cognitive behavioural management (difference between group 3 mm (-10.32 mm to 6.73 mm); P=0.58; difference between groups on Oswestry disability index 0 point (-2.45 to 2.62); P=0.92). The stimulation was well tolerated with minimal transitory side effects.ConclusionsThis results of this trial on the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation for the reduction of pain and disability do not support its clinical use for managing non-specific chronic low back pain.Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN89874874.

Project description:BackgroundSleep disturbance occurs in most patients with delusions or hallucinations and should be treated as a clinical problem in its own right. However, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-the best evidence-based treatment for insomnia-has not been tested in this patient population. We aimed to pilot procedures for a randomised trial testing CBT for sleep problems in patients with current psychotic experiences, and to provide a preliminary assessment of potential benefit.MethodsWe did this prospective, assessor-blind, randomised controlled pilot trial (Better Sleep Trial [BEST]) at two mental health centres in the UK. Patients (aged 18-65 years) with persistent distressing delusions or hallucinations in the context of insomnia and a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based randomisation system with minimisation to balance for sex, insomnia severity, and psychotic experiences, to receive either eight sessions of CBT plus standard care (medication and contact with the local clinical team) or standard care alone. Research assessors were masked to group allocation. Assessment of outcome was done at weeks 0, 12 (post-treatment), and 24 (follow-up). The primary efficacy outcomes were insomnia assessed by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and delusions and hallucinations assessed by the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS) at week 12. We did analysis by intention to treat, with an aim to provide confidence interval estimation of treatment effects. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 33695128.FindingsBetween Dec 14, 2012, and May 22, 2013, and Nov 7, 2013, and Aug 26, 2014, we randomly assigned 50 patients to receive CBT plus standard care (n=24) or standard care alone (n=26). The last assessments were completed on Feb 10, 2015. 48 (96%) patients provided follow-up data. 23 (96%) patients offered CBT took up the intervention. Compared with standard care, CBT led to reductions in insomnia in the large effect size range at week 12 (adjusted mean difference 6.1, 95% CI 3.0-9.2, effect size d=1.9). By week 12, nine (41%) of 22 patients receiving CBT and one (4%) of 25 patients receiving standard care alone no longer had insomnia, with ISI scores lower than the cutoff for insomnia. The treatment effect estimation for CBT covered a range from reducing but also increasing delusions (adjusted mean difference 0.3, 95% CI -2.0 to 2.6) and hallucinations (-1.9, -6.5 to 2.7). Three patients, all in the CBT group, had five adverse events, although none were regarded as related to study treatment.InterpretationOur findings show that CBT for insomnia might be highly effective for improving sleep in patients with persistent delusions or hallucinations. A larger, suitably powered phase 3 study is now needed to provide a precise estimate of the effects of CBT for sleep problems, both on sleep and psychotic experiences.FundingResearch for Patient Benefit Programme, National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:IntroductionCranioplasty is a common surgery in neurosurgery department. However, restoring the integrity of skull brings many challenges to surgeons, and the selection of ideal implant materials is throughout the history of cranioplasty. Although titanium mesh was still preferred by many neurosurgeons in cranial reconstruction, the new polyetheretherketone (PEEK) material, for example, is gaining popularity for craniofacial reconstruction today. There remain limited data that compare the outcome of PEEK cranioplasty and titanium mesh cranioplasty. It is necessary to conduct a study to compare outcome of different materials for cranioplasty.Methods/designIn this multicentre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled study, we will randomise 140 patients in a 1:1 ratio to PEEK cranioplasty versus titanium cranioplasty. Eligible patients are adults who were diagnosed with cranial defect (due to severe traumatic brain injury, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, infiltrative tumour and so on), the defect size is over 25?cm2, and they need to agree to participate in this trial. Instead of standard examinations, the enrolled patients receive neurological, motor, cognitive function and cerebral hemodynamics examinations as well as cosmetic evaluation. The procedures are repeated 3, 6 months after cranioplasty. The primary outcome, defined as infection or implant exposure after surgery, is the implant failure rate within 6 months. Secondary outcomes include postoperative complication rates, neurological outcomes, motor function, cerebral hemodynamics, cosmetic outcome and the total cost over a 6-month period.Ethics and disseminationThis trial protocol has been approved by Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University. All patients will be fully informed the implant materials, potential complications after surgery, responsibilities during the trial, and they will sign the informed consent before joining in this trial. If the patient's cognitive function is impaired, the patient's next of kin would be carefully informed. The results will be disseminated through academic conferences, student theses and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trail registration numberChiCTR1900024625; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundInsomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder associated with significant economic and personal burdens. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTI) is considered the gold standard intervention for insomnia and its efficacy has been well demonstrated. However, the core treatment strategies of CBTI require significant behavioural change, which many individuals find challenging. As a result, although CBTI is efficacious, its effectiveness is reduced by modest levels of adherence in typical clinical settings. This is problematic as adherence is essential to attain desired treatment outcomes. Sleep is often a dyadic process, with approximately 60% of Australian adults sharing a bed. Hence, the present study aims to determine whether incorporating bed partners into treatment for insomnia increases treatment adherence and completion. The impact of adherence on symptoms of insomnia will also be examined.MethodsThis study is a mixed-effects randomised effectiveness trial of partner-assisted CBTI (PA-CBTI). It is an "effectiveness" (as opposed to "efficacy") trial, due to the focus on "real world" clinic-based clients and adherence/attrition as outcomes. Participants will include 120 clients with insomnia who are randomly assigned, in equal numbers, to PA-CBTI, traditional individual CBTI (i-CBTI), or partner-assisted sleep management therapy (PA-SMT; which serves as the control group). All interventions consist of seven weekly 1-h sessions. Treatment outcome is evaluated using clinician-rated treatment adherence, and diary-based adherence to stimulus control and sleep restriction. Clients and partners complete major assessments at pre- and post-treatment, and at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome variables include actigraphy, self-report measures related to sleep, comorbid psychopathology, and relationship functioning.DiscussionThis is the first randomised clinical trial to examine the impact of incorporating the bed partner in the treatment of insomnia. Results will provide new information about the role partners play in clients' insomnia presentation and treatment response, and better define the role of adherence in CBTI. This trial has the potential to optimise treatment outcomes for insomnia by improving adherence and reducing attrition. Results could have far-reaching impacts. Improvements in insomnia have been linked to improvements in mental and physical health and, given the high financial costs of insomnia, this study could have a positive economic impact.Trial registrationACTRN, ACTRN12616000586415 . Registered on 5 May 2016.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough clozapine is an effective option for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), there are still 1/3 to 1/2 of TRS patients who do not respond to clozapine. The main purpose of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to explore the amisulpride augmentation efficacy on the psychopathological symptoms and cognitive function of clozapine-resistant treatment-refractory schizophrenia (CTRS) patients.MethodsA total of 80 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive initial clozapine plus amisulpride (amisulpride group) or clozapine plus placebo (placebo group). Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale scores, Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS), laboratory measurements, and electrocardiograms (ECG) were performed at baseline, at week 6, and week 12.ResultsCompared with the placebo group, amisulpride group had a lower PANSS total score, positive subscore, and general psychopathology subscore at week 6 and week 12 (PBonferroni < 0.01). Furthermore, compared with the placebo group, the amisulpride group showed an improved RBANS language score at week 12 (PBonferroni < 0.001). Amisulpride group had a higher treatment response rate (P = 0.04), lower scores of CGI severity and CGI efficacy at week 6 and week 12 than placebo group (PBonferroni < 0.05). There were no differences between the groups in body mass index (BMI), corrected QT (QTc) intervals, and laboratory measurements. This study demonstrates that amisulpride augmentation therapy can safely improve the psychiatric symptoms and cognitive performance of CTRS patients.ConclusionThis study indicates that amisulpride augmentation therapy has important clinical significance for treating CTRS to improve clinical symptoms and cognitive function with tolerability and safety. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier- NCT03652974. Registered August 31, 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03652974.