Dataset Information

Multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Adolescent antisocial behaviour is a major health and social problem. Studies in the USA have shown that multisystemic therapy reduces such behaviour and the number of criminal offences committed by this group. However, findings outside the USA are equivocal. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour. METHODS:We did an 18 month, multisite, pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial in England. Eligible participants aged 11-17 years with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour had at least three severity criteria indicating past difficulties across several settings and one of five general inclusion criteria for antisocial behaviour. We randomly assigned families (1:1) using stochastic minimisation, stratifying for treatment centre, sex, age at enrolment to study, and age at onset of antisocial behaviour, to receive either management as usual or 3-5 months of multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual. Research assistants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation; the participants could not be masked. The primary outcome was out-of-home placement at 18 months. The primary analysis included all randomised participants for whom data were available. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN77132214. Follow-up of the trial is still ongoing. FINDINGS:Between Feb 4, 2010, and Sept 1, 2012, 1076 families were referred to nine multi-agency panels, 684 of whom were assigned to management as usual (n=342) or multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual (n=342). At 18 months, the proportion of participants in out-of-home placement was not significantly different between the groups (13% [43/340] in the multisystemic therapy group vs 11% [36/335] in the management-as-usual group; odds ratio 1·25, 95% CI 0·77-2·05; p=0·37). INTERPRETATION:The findings do not support that multisystemic therapy should be used over management as usual as the intervention of choice for adolescents with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour. FUNDING:Department for Children, Schools and Families, Department of Health.

SUBMITTER: Fonagy P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6697182 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

Fonagy Peter P Butler Stephen S Cottrell David D Scott Stephen S Pilling Stephen S Eisler Ivan I Fuggle Peter P Kraam Abdullah A Byford Sarah S Wason James J Ellison Rachel R Simes Elizabeth E Ganguli Poushali P Allison Elizabeth E Goodyer Ian M IM

The lancet. Psychiatry 20180105 2

<h4>Background</h4>Adolescent antisocial behaviour is a major health and social problem. Studies in the USA have shown that multisystemic therapy reduces such behaviour and the number of criminal offences committed by this group. However, findings outside the USA are equivocal. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour.<h4>Methods</h4>We did an 18 month, multisite, pragmatic, ...[more]

PMID: 29307527

Similar Datasets

Project description:Following surgical fixation of ankle fractures, the traditional management has included immobilisation for 6 weeks in a below-knee cast. However, this can lead to disuse atrophy of the affected leg and joint stiffness. While early rehabilitation from 2 weeks post surgery is viewed as safe, controversy remains regarding its benefits. We will compare the effectiveness of early motion and directed exercise (EMADE) ankle rehabilitation, against usual care, i.e. 6 weeks' immobilisation in a below-knee cast.We have designed a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (p-RCT) to compare the EMADE intervention against usual care. We will recruit 144 independently living adult participants, absent of tissue-healing comorbidities, who have undergone surgical stabilisation of isolated Weber B ankle fractures. The EMADE intervention consists of a non-weight-bearing progressive home exercise programme, complemented with manual therapy and education. Usual care consists of immobilisation in a non-weight-bearing below-knee cast. The intervention period is between week 2 and week 6 post surgery. The primary outcome is the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at 12 weeks post surgery. Secondary PROMs include the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, return to work and return to driving, with objective outcomes including ankle range of motion. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. An economic evaluation will be included.The EMADE intervention is a package of care designed to address the detrimental effects of disuse atrophy and joint stiffness. An advantage of the OMAS is the potential of meta-analysis with other designs. Within the economic evaluation, the cost-utility analysis, may be used by commissioners, while the use of patient-relevant outcomes, such as return to work and driving, will ensure that the study remains pertinent to patients and their families. As it is being conducted in the clinical environment, this p-RCT has high external validity. Accordingly, if significant clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness are demonstrated, EMADE should become a worthwhile treatment option. A larger-scale, multicentre trial may be required to influence national guidelines.ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN11212729 . Registered retrospectively on 20 March 2017.

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:BackgroundAzithromycin is an orally active synthetic macrolide antibiotic with a wide range of anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. It is a safe, inexpensive, generic licenced drug available worldwide and manufactured to scale and is a potential candidate therapy for pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Azithromycin was widely used to treat severe SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but to date, no randomised data are available in any coronavirus infections. Other ongoing trials are exploring short courses of azithromycin either in early disease, within the first 7 days of symptoms, when azithromycin's antiviral properties may be important, or late in disease when anti-bacterial properties may reduce the risk of secondary bacterial infection. However, the molecule's anti-inflammatory properties, including suppression of pulmonary macrophage-derived pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukins-1β, -6, -8, and -18 and cytokines G-CSF and GM-CSF may provide a distinct therapeutic benefit if given in as a prolonged course during the period of progression from moderate to severe disease.MethodsATOMIC2 is a phase II/III, multi-centre, prospective, open-label, two-arm randomised superiority clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care for adults presenting to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms who are not admitted at initial presentation. We will enrol adults, ≥ 18 years of age assessed in acute hospitals in the UK with clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 infection where management on an ambulatory care pathway is deemed appropriate. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or to azithromycin 500 mg orally daily for 14 days with telephone follow-up at days 14 and 28. The primary objective is to compare the proportion with either death or respiratory failure requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation over 28 days from randomisation. Secondary objectives include mortality/respiratory failure in those with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis; all-cause mortality; progression to pneumonia; progression to severe pneumonia; peak severity of illness and mechanistic analysis of blood and nasal biomarkers.DiscussionThis trial will determine the clinical utility of azithromycin in patients with moderately severe, clinically diagnosed COVID-19 and could be rapidly applicable worldwide.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04381962 . Registered on 11 May 2020. EudraCT identifier 2020-001740-26 . Opened for accrual on 29 May 2020.

Project description:BackgroundCognitive behavioural therapy is an effective treatment for depression. However, one third of the patients do not respond satisfactorily, and relapse rates of around 30 % within the first post-treatment year were reported in a recent meta-analysis. In total, 30-50 % of remitted patients present with residual symptoms by the end of treatment. A common residual symptom is rumination, a process of recurrent negative thinking and dwelling on negative affect. Rumination has been demonstrated as a major factor in vulnerability to depression, predicting the onset, severity, and duration of future depression. Rumination-focused cognitive behavioural therapy is a psychotherapeutic treatment targeting rumination. Because rumination plays a major role in the initiation and maintenance of depression, targeting rumination with rumination-focused cognitive behavioural therapy may be more effective in treating depression and reducing relapse than standard cognitive behavioural therapy.Method/designThis study is a two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial comparing the effectiveness of group-based rumination-focused cognitive behaviour therapy with the effectiveness of group-based cognitive behavioural therapy for treatment of depression. One hundred twenty-eight patients with depression will be recruited from and given treatment in an outpatient service at a psychiatric hospital in Denmark. Our primary outcome will be severity of depressive symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) at completion of treatment. Secondary outcomes will be level of rumination, worry, anxiety, quality of life, behavioural activation, experimental measures of cognitive flexibility, and emotional attentional bias. A 6-month follow-up is planned and will include the primary outcome measure and assessment of relapse.DiscussionThe clinical outcome of this trial may guide clinicians to decide on the merits of including rumination-focused cognitive behavioural therapy in the treatment of depression in outpatient services.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02278224 , registered 28 Oct. 2014.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm in adolescents is common and repetition occurs in a high proportion of these cases. Scarce evidence exists for effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm.MethodsThis pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual was done at 40 UK Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) centres. We recruited young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to CAMHS after self-harm. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive manualised family therapy delivered by trained and supervised family therapists or treatment as usual by local CAMHS. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were masked. The primary outcome was hospital attendance for repetition of self-harm in the 18 months after group assignment. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN59793150.FindingsBetween Nov 23, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013, 3554 young people were screened and 832 eligible young people consented to participation and were randomly assigned to receive family therapy (n=415) or treatment as usual (n=417). Primary outcome data were available for 795 (96%) participants. Numbers of hospital attendances for repeat self-harm events were not significantly different between the groups (118 [28%] in the family therapy group vs 103 [25%] in the treatment as usual group; hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·87-1·49] p=0·33). Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in both groups (787 in the family therapy group vs 847 in the treatment as usual group).InterpretationFor adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, our family therapy intervention conferred no benefits over treatment as usual in reducing subsequent hospital attendance for self-harm. Clinicians are therefore still unable to recommend a clear, evidence-based intervention to reduce repeated self-harm in adolescents.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:BackgroundAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a common lifelong condition affecting 1 in 100 people. ASD affects how a person relates to others and the world around them. Difficulty responding to sensory information (noise, touch, movement, taste, sight) is common, and might include feeling overwhelmed or distressed by loud or constant low-level noise (e.g. in the classroom). Affected children may also show little or no response to these sensory cues. These 'sensory processing difficulties' are associated with behaviour and socialisation problems, and affect education, relationships, and participation in daily life. Sensory integration therapy (SIT) is a face-to-face therapy or treatment provided by trained occupational therapists who use play-based sensory-motor activities and the just-right challenge to influence the way the child responds to sensation, reducing distress, and improving motor skills, adaptive responses, concentration, and interaction with others. With limited research into SIT, this protocol describes in detail how the intervention will be defined and evaluated.MethodsThis is a two-arm pragmatic individually 1:1 randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot of SIT versus usual care for primary school aged children (aged 4 to 11 years) with ASD and sensory processing difficulties; 216 children will be recruited from multiple sources. Therapy will be delivered in clinics meeting full fidelity criteria for manualised SIT over 26 weeks (face-to-face sessions: two per week for 10 weeks, two per month for 2 months; telephone call: one per month for 2 months). Follow-up assessments will be completed at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. Prior to recruitment, therapists will be invited to participate in focus groups/interviews to explore what is delivered as usual care in trial regions; carers will be invited to complete an online survey to map out their experience of services. Following recruitment, carers will be given diaries to record their contact with services. Following intervention, carer and therapist interviews will be completed.DiscussionResults of this trial will provide high-quality evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of SIT aimed at improving behavioural, functional, social, educational, and well-being outcomes for children and well-being outcomes for carers and families.Trial registrationISRCTN14716440 . Registered on 8 November 2016.

Dataset Information

Multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

Publications

Multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets