Treatment of child anxiety in the context of maternal anxiety disorder: a randomised controlled trial and economic analysis

Background Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for childhood anxiety disorders is associated with modest outcomes in the context of parental anxiety disorder. Objectives This study evaluated whether or not the outcome of CBT for children with anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders is improved by the addition of (i) treatment of maternal anxiety disorders, or (ii) treatment focused on maternal responses. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the additional treatments was also evaluated. Design Participants were randomised to receive (i) child cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT); (ii) CCBT with CBT to target maternal anxiety disorders [CCBT + maternal cognitive–behavioural therapy (MCBT)]; or (iii) CCBT with an intervention to target mother–child interactions (MCIs) (CCBT + MCI). Setting A NHS university clinic in Berkshire, UK. Participants Two hundred and eleven children with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had an anxiety disorder. Interventions All families received eight sessions of individual CCBT. Mothers in the CCBT + MCBT arm also received eight sessions of CBT targeting their own anxiety disorders. Mothers in the MCI arm received 10 sessions targeting maternal parenting cognitions and behaviours. Non-specific interventions were delivered to balance groups for therapist contact. Main outcome measures Primary clinical outcomes were the child’s primary anxiety disorder status and degree of improvement at the end of treatment. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 6 and 12 months. Outcomes in the economic analyses were identified and measured using estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYS were combined with treatment, health and social care costs and presented within an incremental cost–utility analysis framework with associated uncertainty. Results MCBT was associated with significant short-term improvement in maternal anxiety; however, after children had received CCBT, group differences were no longer apparent. CCBT + MCI was associated with a reduction in maternal overinvolvement and more confident expectations of the child. However, neither CCBT + MCBT nor CCBT + MCI conferred a significant post-treatment benefit over CCBT in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.62, p = 0.29; adjusted RR CCBT + MCI vs. control: adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.67, p = 0.20, respectively] or global improvement ratings (adjusted RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59, p = 0.05; adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.53, p = 0.13). CCBT + MCI outperformed CCBT on some secondary outcome measures. Furthermore, primary economic analyses suggested that, at commonly accepted thresholds of cost-effectiveness, the probability that CCBT + MCI will be cost-effective in comparison with CCBT (plus non-specific interventions) is about 75%. Conclusions Good outcomes were achieved for children and their mothers across treatment conditions. There was no evidence of a benefit to child outcome of supplementing CCBT with either intervention focusing on maternal anxiety disorder or maternal cognitions and behaviours. However, supplementing CCBT with treatment that targeted maternal cognitions and behaviours represented a cost-effective use of resources, although the high percentage of missing data on some economic variables is a shortcoming. Future work should consider whether or not effects of the adjunct interventions are enhanced in particular contexts. The economic findings highlight the utility of considering the use of a broad range of services when evaluating interventions with this client group. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19762288. Funding This trial was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC–NIHR partnership (09/800/17) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 38.

Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy Trial (OCTET) comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-managed therapies: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) specify recommendations for the treatment and management of OCD using a stepped care approach. Steps three to six of this model recommend treatment options for people with OCD that range from low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) to more intensive psychological and pharmacological interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), including exposure and response prevention, is the recommended psychological treatment. However, whilst there is some preliminary evidence that self-managed therapy packages for OCD can be effective, a more robust evidence base of their clinical and cost effectiveness and acceptability is required. Methods/Design: Our proposed study will test two different self-help treatments for OCD: 1) computerised CBT (cCBT) using OCFighter, an internet-delivered OCD treatment package; and 2) GSH using a book. Both treatments will be accompanied by email or telephone support from a mental health professional. We will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and patient and health professional acceptability of the treatments. Discussion: This study will provide more robust evidence of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability of self-help treatments for OCD. If cCBT and/or GSH prove effective, it will provide additional, more accessible treatment options for people with OCD.

Improving mood with psychoanalytic and cognitive therapies (IMPACT): a pragmatic effectiveness superiority trial to investigate whether specialised psychological treatment reduces the risk for relapse in adolescents with moderate to severe unipolar depression: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Up to 70% of adolescents with moderate to severe unipolar major depression respond to psychological treatment plus Fluoxetine (20-50 mg) with symptom reduction and improved social function reported by 24 weeks after beginning treatment. Around 20% of non responders appear treatment resistant and 30% of responders relapse within 2 years. The specific efficacy of different psychological therapies and the moderators and mediators that influence risk for relapse are unclear. The cost-effectiveness and safety of psychological treatments remain poorly evaluated. Methods/Design Improving Mood with Psychoanalytic and Cognitive Therapies, the IMPACT Study, will determine whether Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Short Term Psychoanalytic Therapy is superior in reducing relapse compared with Specialist Clinical Care. The study is a multicentre pragmatic effectiveness superiority randomised clinical trial: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy consists of 20 sessions over 30 weeks, Short Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 30 sessions over 30 weeks and Specialist Clinical Care 12 sessions over 20 weeks. We will recruit 540 patients with 180 randomised to each arm. Patients will be reassessed at 6, 12, 36, 52 and 86 weeks. Methodological aspects of the study are systematic recruitment, explicit inclusion criteria, reliability checks of assessments with control for rater shift, research assessors independent of treatment team and blind to randomization, analysis by intention to treat, data management using remote data entry, measures of quality assurance, advanced statistical analysis, manualised treatment protocols, checks of adherence and competence of therapists and assessment of cost-effectiveness. We will also determine whether time to recovery and/or relapse are moderated by variations in brain structure and function and selected genetic and hormone biomarkers taken at entry. Discussion The objective of this clinical trial is to determine whether there are specific effects of specialist psychotherapy that reduce relapse in unipolar major depression in adolescents and thereby costs of treatment to society. We also anticipate being able to utilise psychotherapy experience, neuroimaging, genetic and hormone measures to reveal what techniques and their protocols may work best for which patients.

Surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radiotherapy and androgen suppression therapy in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer: an analysis of two randomised trials

Background Androgen suppression therapy and radiotherapy are used to treat locally advanced prostate cancer. 3 years of androgen suppression confers a small survival benefit compared with 6 months of therapy in this setting, but is associated with more toxic effects. Early identification of men in whom radiotherapy and 6 months of androgen suppression is insufficient for cure is important. Thus, we assessed whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values can act as an early surrogate for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Methods We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials that showed improved overall and prostate cancer-specific survival with radiotherapy and 6 months of androgen suppression compared with radio therapy alone and measured lowest PSA concentrations (PSA nadir) and those immediately after treatment (PSA end). We assessed a cohort of 734 men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer from two eligible trials in the USA and Australasia that randomly allocated participants between Feb 2, 1996, and Dec 27, 2001. We used Prentice criteria to assess whether reported PSA nadir or PSA end concentrations of more than 0.5 ng/mL were surrogates for PCSM. Findings Men treated with radiotherapy and 6 months of androgen suppression in both trials were significantly less likely to have PSA end and PSA nadir values of more than 0.5 ng/mL than were those treated with radiotherapy alone (p<0.0001). Presence of candidate surrogates (ie, PSA end and PSA nadir values >0.5 ng/mL) alone and when assessed in conjunction with the randomised treatment group increased risk of PCSM in the US trial (PSA nadir p=0.0016; PSA end p=0.017) and Australasian trial (PSA nadir p<0.0001; PSA end p=0.0012). In both trials, the randomised treatment group was no longer associated with PCSM (p >= 0.20) when the candidate surrogates were included in the model. Therefore, both PSA metrics satisfied Prentice criteria for surrogacy. Interpretation After radiotherapy and 6 months of androgen suppression, men with PSA end values exceeding 0.5 ng/mL should be considered for long-term androgen suppression and those with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer with PSA nadir values exceeding 0.5 ng/mL should be considered for inclusion in randomised trials investigating the use of drugs that have extended survival in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a practice nurse led strategy to improve the notification and treatment of partners of people with chlamydia infection. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 27 general practices in the Bristol and Birmingham areas. PARTICIPANTS: 140 men and women with chlamydia (index cases) diagnosed by screening of a home collected urine sample or vulval swab specimen. INTERVENTIONS: Partner notification at the general practice immediately after diagnosis by trained practice nurses, with telephone follow up by a health adviser; or referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the proportion of index cases with at least one treated sexual partner. Specified secondary outcomes included the number of sexual contacts elicited during a sexual history, positive test result for chlamydia six weeks after treatment, and the cost of each strategy in 2003 sterling prices. RESULTS: 65.3% (47/72) of participants receiving practice nurse led partner notification had at least one partner treated compared with 52.9% (39/68) of those referred to a genitourinary medicine clinic (risk difference 12.4%, 95% confidence interval -1.8% to 26.5%). Of 68 participants referred to the clinic, 21 (31%) did not attend. The costs per index case were 32.55 pounds sterling for the practice nurse led strategy and 32.62 pounds sterling for the specialist referral strategy. CONCLUSION: Practice based partner notification by trained nurses with telephone follow up by health advisers is at least as effective as referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic, and costs the same. Trial registration Clinical trials: NCT00112255.

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. METHODS: Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. FINDINGS: Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

Acupuncture for post anaesthetic recovery and postoperative pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND We report on the design and implementation of a study protocol entitled Acupuncture randomised trial for post anaesthetic recovery and postoperative pain - a pilot study (ACUARP) designed to investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy performed in the perioperative period on post anaesthetic recovery and postoperative pain. METHODS/DESIGN The study is designed as a randomised controlled pilot trial with three arms and partial double blinding. We will compare (a) press needle acupuncture, (b) no treatment and (c) press plaster acupressure in a standardised anaesthetic setting. Seventy-five patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery to the uterus or ovaries will be allocated randomly to one of the three trial arms. The total observation period will begin one day before surgery and end on the second postoperative day. Twelve press needles and press plasters are to be administered preoperatively at seven acupuncture points. The primary outcome measure will be time from extubation to 'ready for discharge' from the post anaesthesia care unit (in minutes). The 'ready for discharge' end point will be assessed using three different scores: the Aldrete score, the Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System and an In-House score. Secondary outcome measures will comprise pre-, intra- and postoperative variables (which are anxiety, pain, nausea and vomiting, concomitant medication). DISCUSSION The results of this study will provide information on whether acupuncture may improve patient post anaesthetic recovery. Comparing acupuncture with acupressure will provide insight into potential therapeutic differences between invasive and non-invasive acupuncture techniques. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT01816386 (First received: 28 October 2012).

Unique and shared techniques in cognitive-behavioural and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy: a content analysis of randomised trials on depression

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapeutic interventions assume that specific techniques are used in treatments, which are responsible for changes in the client's symptoms. This assumption also holds true for meta-analyses, where evidence for specific interventions and techniques is compiled. However, it has also been argued that different treatments share important techniques and that an upcoming consensus about useful treatment strategies is leading to a greater integration of treatments. This makes assumptions about the effectiveness of specific interventions ingredients questionable if the shared (common) techniques are more often used in interventions than are the unique techniques. This study investigated the unique or shared techniques in RCTs of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). Psychotherapeutic techniques were coded from 42 masked treatment descriptions of RCTs in the field of depression (1979-2010). CBT techniques were often used in studies identified as either CBT or STPP. However, STPP techniques were only used in STPP-identified studies. Empirical clustering of treatment descriptions did not confirm the original distinction of CBT versus STPP, but instead showed substantial heterogeneity within both approaches. Extraction of psychotherapeutic techniques from the treatment descriptions is feasible and could be used as a content-based approach to classify treatments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The ring vaccination trial: a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design to evaluate vaccine efficacy and effectiveness during outbreaks, with special reference to Ebola

A World Health Organization expert meeting on Ebola vaccines proposed urgent safety and efficacy studies in response to the outbreak in West Africa. One approach to communicable disease control is ring vaccination of individuals at high risk of infection due to their social or geographical connection to a known case. This paper describes the protocol for a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design which uses ring vaccination.In the Ebola ça suffit ring vaccination trial, rings are randomised 1:1 to (a) immediate vaccination of eligible adults with single dose vaccination or (b) vaccination delayed by 21 days. Vaccine efficacy against disease is assessed in participants over equivalent periods from the day of randomisation. Secondary objectives include vaccine effectiveness at the level of the ring, and incidence of serious adverse events.Ring vaccination trials are adaptive, can be run until disease elimination, allow interim analysis, and can go dormant during inter-epidemic periods.

Feasibility study of a single-blind randomised controlled trial of an occupational therapy intervention.

BACKGROUND Several factors facilitate or hinder efficacy research in occupational therapy. Strategies are needed, therefore, to support the successful implementation of trials. AIM To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The main feasibility objectives of this study were to assess the process, resources, management, and scientific basis of a trial RCT. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 10 occupational therapists, between the ages of 30 and 55 (M 43.4; SD 8.3) with seven to 26 years' (M 14.3; SD 6.1) experience, participated in this study. Qualitative data collected included minutes of meetings, reports, and field notes. The data were analysed based on the principles of content analysis, using feasibility objectives as the main categories. RESULTS Data analysis revealed strengths in relation to retention and inclusion criteria of participants, the study protocol, study organisation, and the competence of researchers. Weaknesses were found related to recruitment, randomisation, data collection, time for training and communication, commitment, and design. CONCLUSION The findings indicated that there are several factors which had a considerable impact on the implementation of an RCT in practice. However, it was useful to assess methods and procedures of the trial RCT as a basis to refine research plans.

Surgical trial in traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (STITCH) : A randomised controlled trial of early surgery compared with Initial conservative treatment

Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.