Effect of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery (CopenHeartVR): study protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart valve diseases are common with an estimated prevalence of 2.5% in the Western world. The number is rising due to an ageing population. Once symptomatic, heart valve diseases are potentially lethal, and heavily influence daily living and quality of life. Surgical treatment, either valve replacement or repair, remains the treatment of choice. However, post surgery, the transition to daily living may become a physical, mental and social challenge. We hypothesise that a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programme can improve physical capacity and self-assessed mental health and reduce hospitalisation and healthcare costs after heart valve surgery. METHODS: A randomised clinical trial, CopenHeartVR, aims to investigate whether cardiac rehabilitation in addition to usual care is superior to treatment as usual after heart valve surgery. The trial will randomly allocate 210 patients, 1:1 intervention to control group, using central randomisation, and blinded outcome assessment and statistical analyses. The intervention consists of 12 weeks of physical exercise, and a psycho-educational intervention comprising five consultations. Primary outcome is peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing with ventilatory gas analysis. Secondary outcome is self-assessed mental health measured by the standardised questionnaire Short Form 36. Also, long-term healthcare utilisation and mortality as well as biochemistry, echocardiography and cost-benefit will be assessed. A mixed-method design is used to evaluate qualitative and quantitative findings encompassing a survey-based study before the trial and a qualitative pre- and post-intervention study. DISCUSSION: The study is approved by the local regional Research Ethics Committee (H-1-2011-157), and the Danish Data Protection Agency (j.nr. 2007-58-0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://NCT01558765).

Selenium supplementation for patients with Graves' hyperthyroidism (the GRASS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Graves' hyperthyroidism is an autoimmune disease causing hyperfunction of the thyroid gland. The concentration of selenium is high in the thyroid gland and two important groups of enzymes within the thyroid are selenoproteins, that is, they depend on selenium. Selenium may have beneficial effects on autoimmune hypothyroidism and on Graves' orbitopathy, but the effects of selenium on Graves' hyperthyroidism is unknown.We hypothesize that adjuvant selenium may be beneficial in the treatment of Graves' hyperthyroidism. The objective is to investigate if selenium supplementation plus standard treatment with anti-thyroid drugs versus standard treatment with anti-thyroid drugs will lead to a decrease in anti-thyroid drug treatment failure (that is, failure to remain euthyroid, without further treatment, one year after cessation of anti-thyroid drug treatment), faster and longer lasting remission (that is, anti-thyroid drug treatment success), and improved quality of life in patients with Graves' hyperthyroidism. METHODS AND DESIGN: The trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, blinded, multicentre clinical trial. Inclusion criteria are: age 18 years or older; diagnosis of active Graves' hyperthyroidism within the last two months; and informed consent. Exclusion criteria are major co-morbidity; previous radioactive iodine treatment; ongoing anti-thyroid drug treatment for more than two months; treatment with immunomodulatory drugs; known allergy towards the components in the selenium and placebo pills; pregnancy or breast-feeding; and intake of selenium supplementation above 70 µg per day. We plan to include 492 participants, randomised (1:1) to two tablets of 100 µg selenium once daily for the 24 to 30 months intervention period versus two identical placebo tablets once daily.The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with anti-thyroid drug treatment failure (see above) at the end of the intervention period (24 to 30 months). Secondary outcomes are: thyroid-specific quality of life during the first year after randomisation; level of thyroid stimulating hormone-receptor antibodies at 18 months after randomisation and at the end of the intervention period (24 to 30 months); hyperthyroid symptoms during the first year after randomisation; eye symptoms during the first year after randomisation, and at the end of the intervention period (24 to 30 months); adverse reactions during the intervention period; and serious adverse events during the intervention period. DISCUSSION: It was of great importance to the initiators of this trial, that the results would be directly applicable to daily clinical practice. Therefore, it was designed as a pragmatic trial: the patients follow their usual treatment at their usual hospitals. In order to still collect high quality data on the clinical course and quality of life, an elaborate trial management system was designed to keep track of patient input, need for trial personnel input and action, and to collect data from medical chart systems. Meticulous follow-up on missing responses to the QoL measurements has been incorporated into the system, to minimise missing quality of life data. Monitoring of adverse reactions and events is achieved by thorough instruction of the participants, surveillance of patient-reported outcomes, and integration with national databases regarding hospitalizations. A very long intervention period was necessary, since patients are not considered in remission until one year after stopping anti-thyroid drugs. Usually, patients are treated for 12 to 18 months with anti-thyroid drugs, yielding a total intervention period of 24 to 30 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01611896.

The effect of integrated cardiac rehabilitation versus treatment as usual for atrial fibrillation patients treated with ablation: the randomised CopenHeartRFA trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation affects almost 2% of the population in the Western world. To preserve sinus rhythm, ablation is undertaken in symptomatic patients. Observational studies show that patients with atrial fibrillation often report a low quality of life and are less prone to be physically active due to fear of triggering fibrillation. Small trials indicate that exercise training has a positive effect on exercise capacity and mental health, and both patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation and in sinus rhythm may benefit from rehabilitation in managing life after ablation. No randomised trials have been published on cardiac rehabilitation for atrial fibrillation patients treated with ablation that includes exercise and psychoeducational components. AIM: To test the effects of an integrated cardiac rehabilitation programme versus treatment as usual for patients with atrial fibrillation treated with ablation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS DESIGN: The trial is a multicentre parallel arm design with 1:1 randomisation to the intervention and control group with blinded outcome assessment. 210 patients treated for atrial fibrillation with radiofrequency ablation will be included. The intervention consists of a rehabilitation programme including four psychoeducative consultations with a specially trained nurse and 12 weeks of individualised exercise training, plus the standard medical follow-up. Patients in the control group will receive the standard medical follow-up. The primary outcome measure is exercise capacity measured by the VO(2) peak. The secondary outcome measure is self-rated mental health measured by the Short Form 36 questionnaire. Postintervention, qualitative interviews will be conducted in 10% of the intervention group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is approved by the regional research ethics committee (number H-1-2011-135), the Danish Data Protection Agency (reg. nr. 2007-58-0015) and follows the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and may possibly impact on rehabilitation guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01523145.

A randomised clinical trial of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care for patients treated for infective endocarditis--the CopenHeartIE trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Infective endocarditis (IE) is among the most serious infectious diseases in the western world. Treatment requires lengthy hospitalisation, high-dosage antibiotic therapy and possible valve replacement surgery. Despite advances in treatment, the 1-year mortality remains at 20-40%. Studies indicate that patients experience persisting physical symptoms, diminished quality of life and difficulties returning to work up to a year postdischarge. No studies investigating the effects of rehabilitation have been published. We present the rationale and design of the CopenHeart(IE) trial, which investigates the effect of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care for patients treated for IE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effects of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care on the physical and psychosocial functioning of patients treated for IE. The trial is a multicentre, parallel design trial with 1 : 1 individual randomisation to either the intervention or control group. The intervention consists of five psychoeducational consultations provided by specialised nurses and a 12-week exercise training programme. The primary outcome is mental health (MH) measured by the standardised Short Form 36 (SF-36). The secondary outcome is peak oxygen uptake measured by the bicycle ergospirometry test. Furthermore, a number of exploratory analyses will be performed. Based on sample size calculation, 150 patients treated for left-sided (native or prosthetic valve) or cardiac device endocarditis will be included in the trial. A qualitative and a survey-based complementary study will be undertaken, to investigate postdischarge experiences of the patients. A qualitative postintervention study will explore rehabilitation participation experiences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the regional research ethics committee (no H-1-2011-129) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (no 2007-58-0015). Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01512615.

The effect of adding psychodynamic therapy to antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Psychodynamic therapy may be a treatment option for depression, but the effects have only been limitedly assessed in systematic reviews. METHOD: Using Cochrane systematic review methodology, we compared the benefits and harms of psychodynamic therapy versus 'no intervention' or sham for major depressive disorder. We accepted any co-intervention, including antidepressants, as long as it was delivered similarly in both intervention groups. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Psychlit, Psyc Info, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2010. Two authors independently extracted data. We evaluated risk of bias to control for systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analysis to control for random errors. RESULTS: We included five trials randomizing a total of 365 participants who all received antidepressants as co-intervention. All trials had high risk of bias. Four trials assessed 'interpersonal psychotherapy' and one trial 'short psychodynamic supportive psychotherapy'. Meta-analysis showed that psychodynamic therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference -3.01 (95% confidence interval -3.98 to -2.03; P<0.00001), no significant heterogeneity between trials) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result. LIMITATIONS: Our results are based on few trials with high risk of bias and a limited number of participants so our results may be questionable. CONCLUSIONS: Adding psychodynamic therapy to antidepressants might benefit depressed patients, but the possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is small.

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P = 0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures.

Illness management and recovery (IMR) in Danish community mental health centres.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses that can have a significant disabling impact on the lives of people. Psychosocial interventions that stress hope and recovery as a part of a multi-dimensional approach are possibly indicated to support people with severe mental illness in facilitating recovery. Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based psychosocial intervention designed as structured program with a recovery-oriented approach. The aim of IMR is to rehabilitate people with severe mental illnesses by helping them acquire knowledge and skills in managing their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. Previous randomised clinical trials indicate that IMR can be implemented with a good effect and a high fidelity though further trials are crucial to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of IMR. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial design is a randomised, assessor-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual for 200 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder under the care of two community mental health centres in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is level of functioning at the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes are disease symptoms; use of alcohol/drugs; individual meaning of recovery; hope; hospital admissions and out-patient psychiatric treatment at the end of treatment and the abovementioned and level of functioning at follow-up 21 months after baseline. DISCUSSION: If the results of this trial show IMR to be effective these positive results will strengthen the evidence of IMR as an effective comprehensive psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach for people with severe mental illness. This will have significant implications for the treatment and recovery of people with severe mental illness.

The effect of interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies versus 'treatment as usual' in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed 'interpersonal psychotherapy' and only one trial assessed 'psychodynamic psychotherapy'. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference -3.12 (95% confidence interval -4.39 to -1.86;P<0.00001), no heterogeneity) compared with 'treatment as usual'. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result. DISCUSSION: We did not find convincing evidence supporting or refuting the effect of interpersonal psychotherapy or psychodynamic therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' for patients with major depressive disorder. The potential beneficial effect seems small and effects on major outcomes are unknown. Randomized trials with low risk of systematic errors and low risk of random errors are needed.

The Hand Eczema Trial (HET): Design of a randomised clinical trial of the effect of classification and individual counselling versus no intervention among health-care workers with hand eczema.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema is the most frequently recognized occupational disease in Denmark with an incidence of approximately 0.32 per 1000 person-years. Consequences of hand eczema include chronic severe eczema, prolonged sick leave, unemployment, and impaired quality of life. New preventive strategies are needed to reduce occupational hand eczema. METHODS/DESIGN: We describe the design of a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effects of classification of hand eczema plus individual counselling versus no intervention. The trial includes health-care workers with hand eczema identified from a self-administered questionnaire delivered to 3181 health-care workers in three Danish hospitals. The questionnaire identifies the prevalence of hand eczema, knowledge of skin-protection, and exposures that can lead to hand eczema. At entry, all participants are assessed regarding: disease severity (Hand Eczema Severity Index); self-evaluated disease severity; number of eruptions; quality of life; skin protective behaviour, and knowledge of skin protection. The patients are centrally randomised to intervention versus no intervention 1:1 stratified for hospital, profession, and severity score. The experimental group undergoes patch and prick testing; classification of the hand eczema; demonstration of hand washing and appliance of emollients; individual counselling, and a skin-care programme. The control group receives no intervention. All participants are reassessed after six months. The primary outcome is observer-blinded assessment of disease severity and the secondary outcomes are unblinded assessments of disease severity; number of eruptions; knowledge of skin protection; skin-protective behaviour, and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT01012453.

[Self-assessed health status among young people from ethnic minorities living in Denmark]. / Selvvurderet helbred blandt unge fra etniske minoriteter i Danmark.

INTRODUCTION: Only a few studies on the health status of ethnic minorities in Denmark have been carried out. These studies have shown a higher mental and physical morbidity rate and an increased prevalence of social problems among adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the self-reported health status of ethnic Danish youths and young first- and second-generation immigrants from non-Western countries to establish whether there is an association between ethnicity and "belief in the ability to affect one's own health". MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed a cohort of 6,203 ninth-grade students (aged 15 to 16 years), including 264 first-generation and 391 second-generation immigrants from non-Western countries. Self-reported health and self-efficacy, defined as the belief in the ability to affect one's own health, were included in the analyses, using SPSS cross-tabulations and logistical regression analysis. RESULTS: A direct association between ethnicity and self-reported health status was found. Both first- and second-generation immigrants rated their health worse than did ethnic Danish youths. The association was statistically significant for first-generation immigrant girls when controlling for relevant risk factors for ill health. Significant associations between self-reported health status and belief in the ability to affect one's own health were found for both first- and second-generation immigrants of both sexes, compared to ethnic Danish youths. CONCLUSION: Factors related to immigration and immigrants' social conditions may partially explain the ethnic differences in self-reported health status. However, cultural differences may influence the ethnic and gender differences in health status and self-efficacy, as ethnic minorities are less likely to believe in their ability to affect their own health. It is recommended that this knowledge be implemented when developing health promotion programs in the public schools.