Integrated treatment of first episode psychosis with online training (e-learning): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: The integrated treatment of first episode psychosis has been shown to improve functionality and negative symptoms in previous studies. In this paper, we describe a study of integrated treatment (individual psychoeducation complementary to pharmacotherapy) versus treatment as usual, comparing results at baseline with those at 6-month re-assessment (at the end of the study) for these patients, and online training of professionals to provide this complementary treatment, with the following objectives: 1) to compare the efficacy of individual psychoeducation as add-on treatment versus treatment as usual in improving psychotic and mood symptoms; 2) to compare adherence to medication, functioning, insight, social response, quality of life, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor, between both groups; and 3) to analyse the efficacy of online training of psychotherapists. Methods/design: This is a single-blind randomised clinical trial including patients with first episode psychosis from hospitals across Spain, randomly assigned to either a control group with pharmacotherapy and regular sessions with their psychiatrist (treatment as usual) or an intervention group with integrated care including treatment as usual plus a psychoeducational intervention (14 sessions). Training for professionals involved at each participating centre was provided by the coordinating centre (University Hospital of Alava) through video conferences. Patients are evaluated with an extensive battery of tests assessing clinical and sociodemographic characteristics (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorders, Strauss and Carpenter Prognostic Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, Morisky Green Adherence Scale, Functioning Assessment Short Test, World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument WHOQOL-BREF (an abbreviated version of the WHOQOL-100), and EuroQoL questionnaire), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels are measured in peripheral blood at baseline and at 6 months. The statistical analysis, including bivariate analysis, linear and logistic regression models, will be performed using SPSS. Discussion: This is an innovative study that includes the assessment of an integrated intervention for patients with first episode psychosis provided by professionals who are trained online, potentially making it possible to offer the intervention to more patients.

Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression. RESULTS: Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control. CONCLUSION: At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting.

Mature results of a randomized phase II multicenter study of exemestane versus tamoxifen as first-line hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.

Doxorubicin-paclitaxel: a safe regimen in terms of cardiac toxicity in metastatic breast carcinoma patients. Results from a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: The potential cardiotoxicity of the doxorubicin-paclitaxel regimen, when paclitaxel is given shortly after the end of the anthracycline infusion, is an issue of concern, as suggested by small single institution Phase II studies. METHODS: In a large multicenter Phase III trial, 275 anthracycline naive metastatic breast carcinoma patients were randomized to receive either doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) followed 30 minutes later by paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) 3-hour infusion; AT) or a standard doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen (AC; 60/600 mg/m(2)). Both treatments were given once every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Close cardiac monitoring was implemented in the study design. RESULTS: Congestive heart failure (CHF) occurred in three patients in the AT arm and in one patient in the AC arm (P = 0.62). Decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction to below the limit of normal were documented in 33% AT and 19% AC patients and were not predictive of CHF development. CONCLUSIONS: AT is devoid of excessive cardiac risk among metastatic breast carcinoma patients, when the maximum planned cumulative dose of doxorubicin does not exceed 360 mg/m(2).

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen

Estimating the magnitude of trastuzumab effects within patient subgroups in the HERA trial.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab (Herceptin(R)) improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. We aimed to assess the magnitude of its clinical benefit for subpopulations defined by nodal and steroid hormone receptor status using data from the Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HERA is an international multicenter randomized trial comparing 1 or 2 years of trastuzumab treatment with observation after standard chemotherapy in women with HER2-positive breast cancer. In total, 1703 women randomized to 1-year trastuzumab and 1698 women randomized to observation were included in these analyses. Median follow-up was 23.5 months. The primary endpoint was DFS. RESULTS: The overall hazard ratio (HR) for trastuzumab versus observation was 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.76; P < 0.0001], ranging from 0.46 to 0.82 for subgroups. Estimated improvement in 3-year DFS in subgroups ranged from +11.3% to +0.6%. Patients with the best prognosis (those with node-negative disease and tumors 1.1-2.0 cm) had benefit similar to the overall cohort (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26-1.07; 3-year DFS improvement +4.6%, 95% CI -4.0% to 13.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant trastuzumab therapy reduces the risk of relapse similarly across subgroups defined by nodal status and steroid hormone receptor status, even those at relatively low risk for relapse.

Bone fractures among postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer treated with 5 years of letrozole or tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial.

To compare the incidence and timing of bone fractures in postmenopausal women treated with 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen or letrozole for endocrine-responsive early breast cancer in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial.

Missing data in randomized clinical trials for weight loss: scope of the problem, state of the field, and performance of statistical methods.

BACKGROUND: Dropouts and missing data are nearly-ubiquitous in obesity randomized controlled trails, threatening validity and generalizability of conclusions. Herein, we meta-analytically evaluate the extent of missing data, the frequency with which various analytic methods are employed to accommodate dropouts, and the performance of multiple statistical methods. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases (2000-2006) for articles published in English and manually searched bibliographic references. Articles of pharmaceutical randomized controlled trials with weight loss or weight gain prevention as major endpoints were included. Two authors independently reviewed each publication for inclusion. 121 articles met the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted treatment, sample size, drop-out rates, study duration, and statistical method used to handle missing data from all articles and resolved disagreements by consensus. In the meta-analysis, drop-out rates were substantial with the survival (non-dropout) rates being approximated by an exponential decay curve (e(-lambdat)) where lambda was estimated to be .0088 (95% bootstrap confidence interval: .0076 to .0100) and t represents time in weeks. The estimated drop-out rate at 1 year was 37%. Most studies used last observation carried forward as the primary analytic method to handle missing data. We also obtained 12 raw obesity randomized controlled trial datasets for empirical analyses. Analyses of raw randomized controlled trial data suggested that both mixed models and multiple imputation performed well, but that multiple imputation may be more robust when missing data are extensive. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our analysis offers an equation for predictions of dropout rates useful for future study planning. Our raw data analyses suggests that multiple imputation is better than other methods for handling missing data in obesity randomized controlled trials, followed closely by mixed models. We suggest these methods supplant last observation carried forward as the primary method of analysis.

Safety and immunogenicity of a replication-defective adenovirus type 5 HIV vaccine in Ad5-seronegative persons: a randomized clinical trial (HVTN 054).

BACKGROUND: Individuals without prior immunity to a vaccine vector may be more sensitive to reactions following injection, but may also show optimal immune responses to vaccine antigens. To assess safety and maximal tolerated dose of an adenoviral vaccine vector in volunteers without prior immunity, we evaluated a recombinant replication-defective adenovirus type 5 (rAd5) vaccine expressing HIV-1 Gag, Pol, and multiclade Env proteins, VRC-HIVADV014-00-VP, in a randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation, multicenter trial (HVTN study 054) in HIV-1-seronegative participants without detectable neutralizing antibodies (nAb) to the vector. As secondary outcomes, we also assessed T-cell and antibody responses. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Volunteers received one dose of vaccine at either 10(10) or 10(11) adenovector particle units, or placebo. T-cell responses were measured against pools of global potential T-cell epitope peptides. HIV-1 binding and neutralizing antibodies were assessed. Systemic reactogenicity was greater at the higher dose, but the vaccine was well tolerated at both doses. Although no HIV infections occurred, commercial diagnostic assays were positive in 87% of vaccinees one year after vaccination. More than 85% of vaccinees developed HIV-1-specific T-cell responses detected by IFN-γ ELISpot and ICS assays at day 28. T-cell responses were: CD8-biased; evenly distributed across the three HIV-1 antigens; not substantially increased at the higher dose; and detected at similar frequencies one year following injection. The vaccine induced binding antibodies against at least one HIV-1 Env antigen in all recipients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This vaccine appeared safe and was highly immunogenic following a single dose in human volunteers without prior nAb against the vector. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00119873.

A randomized clinical trial of a coping improvement group intervention for HIV-infected older adults.

This research tested if a 12-session coping improvement group intervention (n = 104) reduced depressive symptoms in HIV-infected older adults compared to an interpersonal support group intervention (n = 105) and an individual therapy upon request (ITUR) control condition (n = 86). Participants were 295 HIV-infected men and women 50-plus years of age living in New York City, Cincinnati, OH, and Columbus, OH. Using A-CASI assessment methodology, participants provided data on their depressive symptoms using the Geriatric Depression Screening Scale (GDS) at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 4- and 8-month follow-up. Whether conducted with all participants (N = 295) or only a subset of participants diagnosed with mild, moderate, or severe depressive symptoms (N = 171), mixed models analyses of repeated measures found that both coping improvement and interpersonal support group intervention participants reported fewer depressive symptoms than ITUR controls at post-intervention, 4-month follow-up, and 8-month follow-up. The effect sizes of the differences between the two active interventions and the control group were greater when outcome analyses were limited to those participants with mild, moderate, or severe depressive symptoms. At no assessment period did coping improvement and interpersonal support group intervention participants differ in depressive symptoms.