Dataset Information

Out-patient triple chronotherapy for the rapid treatment and maintenance of response in depression: feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trial

ABSTRACT:

Background

Triple chronotherapy (sleep deprivation for 36 h, followed by 4 days of advancing the time of sleep and daily morning bright-light therapy for 6 months) has demonstrated benefits for the rapid treatment of depressive symptoms in four small controlled trials of in-patients.

Aims

To test the feasibility of recruitment and delivery of triple chronotherapy for out-patients with depression (ISRCTN17706836; NCT03405493).

Method

In a single-blind trial, 82 participants were randomised to triple chronotherapy or a control intervention. The primary outcome was the number of participants recruited per month and adherence to the protocol. Secondary outcomes included the 6-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-6) at 1 week. Timings of observer ratings were baseline and 1, 2, 4, 8 and 26 weeks after randomisation.

Results

The triple chronotherapy group stayed awake for the planned 36 h and 89.9% adhered to the plan of phase advance of their sleep over the following 4 days. We achieved our recruitment target (60 participants completed the trial within 13 months). There were no reported adverse side-effects. We found a significant difference between the groups by intention-to-treat analysis for the HRSD-6 at weeks 1, 8 and 26. There was a large effect size of Cohen's d = 0.8 on HRSD-6 score at week 1, increasing to d = 1.30 at week 26. A response (≥50% reduction in symptoms) was achieved by 33.3% in the triple chronotherapy group and 16.2% in the control group. This stayed relatively steady until week 26 (35.9 v. 13.9%).

Conclusions

Triple chronotherapy produced a significant and rapid benefit after 1 week in out-patients with depression that was sustained at 26 weeks. Cost-effectiveness trials with a larger clinical sample are required.

SUBMITTER: Veale D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8693902 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:In managing hip fracture, effective pain relief before admission to hospital is difficult without risking side effects. Although emergency departments routinely use fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), there has been little evaluation of its use by paramedics before hospital admission. We aimed to assess whether a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate FICB was feasible. Methods:Volunteer paramedics used scratchcards to allocate patients with hip fracture at random between FICB and pain relief as usual. Primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life. We also measured adverse events, costs, final diagnosis, length of stay in hospital, pain scores and quality of care and collected qualitative data about acceptability to patients in interviews, and paramedics in focus groups. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on the recruitment of paramedics and patients, delivery of FICB, retrieval of outcome data, safety, acceptability, and diagnostic accuracy of hip fracture. Results:We effectively met all progression criteria: we recruited 19 paramedics who randomly allocated 71 patients between trial arms between 28 June 2016 and 31 July 2017; 57 (31 experimental arm, 26 usual care arm, 80% overall) retrospectively consented to follow-up. Just over half (17/31) of experimental participants received FICB; all others had contraindications, including nine taking anticoagulants. Four of the 31 participants assigned FICB and six of the 26 assigned usual care died within 6 months of hospital admission. Serious adverse events were also similar: 3/35 experimental versus 4/36 in usual care. Paramedics' recognition of hip fracture had sensitivity of 49/64 (77%) with a positive predictive value of 46/57 (81%). We received quality of life questionnaires for 30 of 49 patients (61%) at 1 month and 12 of 17 (71%) at 6 months. Patient satisfaction was similar: experimental mean 3.4 (n = 20) versus 3.5 (n = 13) for usual care. Conclusions:RAPID met all progression criteria within reasonable limits. As equipoise remains, we plan to undertake a fully powered multi-centre trial to test clinical and cost effectiveness of paramedic-administered FICB at the scene of hip fracture. Trial registration:ISRCTN 60065373 sought 5 November 2015.

Project description:To address uncertainties prior to conducting a fully powered randomised controlled trial of Morita Therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU alone, or to determine that such a trial is not appropriate and/or feasible.Pilot parallel group randomised controlled feasibility trial.Participants aged ?18 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV major depressive disorder, with or without DSM-IV anxiety disorder(s), recruited from general practice record searches in Devon, UK.We randomised participants on a 1:1 basis stratified by symptom severity, concealing allocation using a secure independent web-based system, to receive TAU (control) or 8-12 sessions of Morita Therapy, a Japanese psychological therapy, plus TAU (intervention).Rates of recruitment, retention and treatment adherence; variance and estimated between-group differences in follow-up scores (on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) (depressive symptoms); Generalised Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire 7 (anxiety symptoms); Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire/Work and Social Adjustment Scale (quality of life); Morita Attitudinal Scale for Arugamama (attitudes)) and their correlation with baseline scores.We recruited 68 participants, 5.1% (95% CI 3.4% to 6.6%) of those invited (34 control; 34 intervention); 64/68 (94%; 95% CI 88.3% to 99.7%) provided 4-month follow-up data. Participants had a mean age of 49 years and mean PHQ-9 score of 16.8; 61% were female. Twenty-four of 34 (70.6%) adhered to the minimum treatment dose. The follow-up PHQ-9 (future primary outcome measure) pooled SD was 6.4 (95% CI 5.5 to 7.8); the magnitude of correlation between baseline and follow-up PHQ-9 scores was 0.42 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.61). Of the participants, 66.7% and 30.0% recovered in the intervention and control groups, respectively; 66.7% and 13.3% responded to treatment in the intervention and control groups, respectively.A large-scale trial of Morita Therapy would require 133 participants per group and is feasible with minor modifications to the pilot trial protocol. Morita Therapy shows promise in treating depression and may provide patients with a distinct alternative to current treatments.ISRCTN17544090; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundGroup Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) may provide a means of improving mental health among people with depression but few studies have explored its effectiveness. Our aim was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial of a group intervention based on CBT principles for women with depression in primary care.MethodsWomen aged 30 to 55 years were recruited and randomly assigned to either 12 weeks of the group intervention or usual care (control). The group intervention was based on a manual and used CBT and problem solving principles with weekly topics including raising activity levels, spotting and catching negative thoughts, problem solving and relaxation. Women were recruited from deprived areas of Bristol. The groups were run by facilitators with some experience and background in group work and one weeks training in use of the course manual. Assessments of mental health were made using measures including the PHQ-9. Follow-up was at 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Qualitative methods were used to support the design of the intervention and to help understand issues of acceptability and feasibility. Interviews were conducted with all participants at baseline and at 3 and 6 months although detailed qualitative analysis was based on a purposive sample of 20 participants at the 3 time points.ResultsOf the 86 participants assessed for eligibility, 52 were allocated to the intervention arm and 21 to the control group. The intervention was delivered according to the manual despite the limited training of the facilitators. The intervention was received favourably by participants and facilitators, with good attendance at sessions for those who engaged with the intervention. Follow up rates at 3 and 6 months for women in both the intervention and control arms were also good. The trial methodology used was appropriate and feasible.ConclusionsThis study showed that a randomised controlled trial of group CBT for women with depression is feasible and the intervention is acceptable, and may possibly prove to be effective in a larger trial. The cost effectiveness of group CBT for depression should be explored further in a full trial.Trial registrationNCT00663078.

Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor's note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.

Project description:IntroductionHigh rates of co-occurring depression are reported in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by social communication impairments and repetitive behaviours. Cognitive-behavioural interventions adapted for ASD have been effective for anxiety problems. There have been evaluation studies of group cognitive-behavioural therapy for co-occurring depression, but no randomised trials investigating low-intensity psychological interventions as recommended in clinical guidelines for mild-moderate depression.Methods and analysisA feasibility study comprising a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and nested qualitative evaluation is under way as preparation for a definitive RCT. Participants (n=70) will be randomised to Guided Self-Help: a low-intensity psychological intervention based on behavioural activation adapted for ASD or treatment as usual. Outcomes including depression symptoms, anxiety, social function and service use will be measured at 10, 16 and 24 weeks postrandomisation and will be blind to group allocation for measures that are not self-administered. The analysis will aim to establish the rates of recruitment and retention for a larger-scale RCT as well as the most appropriate measure of depression to serve as primary outcome. The qualitative study will purposively sample up to 24 participants from each treatment group to consider the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and the trial design.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been received from WALES REC 3 (IRAS project ID: 191558) and the Health Research Authority with R&D approval from Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear Foundation NHS Trusts. To our knowledge, this is the first study of a low-intensity intervention for depression in adults with autism. The results will inform the design of a definitive RCT. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed journal publications reporting the quantitative and qualitative research findings of the study and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN54650760; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate: acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures; distribution of scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, planned primary outcome); and efficient working of trial components.Design and settingA feasibility and external pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN33808269, assigned 10/12/2012) was conducted across 2 UK secondary care outpatient physiotherapy departments associated with regional spinal surgery centres.ParticipantsConsecutive consenting patients aged >18 years; post primary, single level, lumbar discectomy.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to either 1:1 physiotherapy outpatient management including patient leaflet, or patient leaflet alone.Main outcome measuresBlinded assessments were made at 4 weeks post surgery (baseline) and 12 weeks post baseline (proposed primary end point). Secondary outcomes included: Global Perceived Effect, back/leg pain, straight leg raise, return to work/function, quality of life, fear avoidance, range of movement, medication, re-operation.ResultsAt discharge, 110 (44%) eligible patients gave consent to be contacted. 59 (54%) patients were recruited. Loss to follow up was 39% at 12 weeks, with one site contributing 83% losses. Mean (SD) RMDQ was 10.07 (5.58) leaflet and 10.52 (5.94) physiotherapy/leaflet at baseline; and 5.37 (4.91) leaflet and 5.53 (4.49) physiotherapy/leaflet at 12 weeks. 5.1% zero scores at 12 weeks illustrated no floor effect. Sensitivity to change was assessed at 12 weeks with mean (SD) change -4.53 (6.41), 95%CI -7.61 to -1.44 for leaflet; and -6.18 (5.59), 95%CI -9.01 to -3.30 for physiotherapy/leaflet. RMDQ mean difference (95%CI) between change from baseline to twelve weeks was 1.65(-2.46 to 5.75). Mean difference (95%CI) between groups at 12 weeks was -0.16 (-3.36 to 3.04). Participant adherence with treatment was good. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionsBoth interventions were acceptable, and it is promising that they both demonstrated a trend in reducing disability in this population. A randomised controlled trial, using a different trial design, is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of combining the interventions into a stepped care intervention and comparing to a no intervention arm. Findings will guide design changes for an adequately powered randomised controlled trial, using RMDQ as the primary outcome.Trial registrationISRCTN registry 33808269.

Project description:IntroductionLong waiting time is an important barrier to accessing recommended care for low back pain (LBP) in Australia's public health system. This study describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to establish the feasibility of delivering and evaluating stratified care integrated with telehealth ('Rapid Stratified Telehealth'), which aims to reduce waiting times for LBP.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a single-centre feasibility and pilot RCT with nested qualitative interviews. Sixty participants with LBP newly referred to a hospital outpatient clinic will be randomised to receive Rapid Stratified Telehealth or usual care. Rapid Stratified Telehealth involves matching the mode and type of care to participants' risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and presence of potential radiculopathy. 'Low risk' patients are matched to one session of advice over the telephone, 'medium risk' to telehealth physiotherapy plus App-based exercises, 'high risk' to telehealth physiotherapy, App-based exercises, and an online pain education programme, and 'potential radiculopathy' fast tracked to usual in-person care. Primary outcomes include the feasibility of delivering Rapid Stratified Telehealth (ie, acceptability assessed through interviews with clinicians and patients, intervention fidelity, appointment duration, App useability and online pain education programme usage) and evaluating Rapid Stratified Telehealth in a future trial (ie, recruitment rates, consent rates, lost to follow-up and missing data). Secondary outcomes include waiting times, number of appointments, intervention and healthcare costs, clinical outcomes (pain, function, quality of life, satisfaction), healthcare use and adverse events (AEs). Quantitative analyses will be descriptive and inform a future adequately-powered RCT. Interview data will be analysed using thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received approval from the Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone: X21-0221). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001104842.