Somatisation in primary care: experiences of primary care physicians involved in a training program and in a randomised controlled trial

Background: A new intervention aimed at managing patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) based on a specific set of communication techniques was developed, and tested in a cluster randomised clinical trial. Due to the modest results obtained and in order to improve our intervention we need to know the GPs' attitudes towards patients with MUS, their experience, expectations and the utility of the communication techniques we proposed and the feasibility of implementing them. Physicians who took part in 2 different training programs and in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for patients with MUS were questioned to ascertain the reasons for the doctors' participation in the trial and the attitudes, experiences and expectations of GPs about the intervention. Methods: A qualitative study based on four focus groups with GPs who took part in a RCT. A content analysis was carried out. Results: Following the RCT patients are perceived as true suffering persons, and the relationship with them has improved in GPs of both groups. GPs mostly valued the fact that it is highly structured, that it made possible a more comfortable relationship and that it could be applied to a broad spectrum of patients with psychosocial problems. Nevertheless, all participants consider that change in patients is necessary; GPs in the intervention group remarked that that is extremely difficult to achieve. Conclusion: GPs positively evaluate the communication techniques and the interventions that help in understanding patient suffering, and express the enormous difficulties in handling change in patients. These findings provide information on the direction in which efforts for improving intervention should be directed.

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.

Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Background: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mu g budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64 (R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64 (R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90% CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results: All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUCi (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled clinical trial of sublingual immunotherapy in natural rubber latex allergic patients

Trial registration number: CTRN12611000543987