Live two-way video versus face-to-face treatment for depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder: A 24-week randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Live two-way video, easily accessible from home via smartphones and other devices, is becoming a new way of providing psychiatric treatment. However, lack of evidence for real-world clinical setting effectiveness hampers its approval by medical insurance in some countries. Here, we conducted the first large-scale pragmatic, randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of long-term treatment for multiple psychiatric disorders via two-way video using smartphones and other devices, which are currently the primary means of telecommunication. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial compared two-way video versus face-to-face treatment for depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder in the subacute/maintenance phase during a 24-week period. Adult patients with the above-mentioned disorders were allocated to either a two-way video group (≥50% video sessions) or a face-to-face group (100% in-person sessions) and received standard treatment covered by public medical insurance. The primary outcome was the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Component Summary (SF-36 MCS) score. Secondary outcomes included all-cause discontinuation, working alliance, adverse events, and the severity rating scales for each disorder. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients participated in this study. After 24 weeks of treatment, two-way video treatment was found to be noninferior to face-to-face treatment regarding SF-36 MCS score (48.50 vs 46.68, respectively; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding most secondary end points, including all-cause discontinuation, treatment efficacy, and satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Two-way video treatment using smartphones and other devices, was noninferior to face-to-face treatment in real-world clinical settings. Modern telemedicine, easily accessible from home, can be used as a form of health care.

Japanese Project for Telepsychiatry Evaluation during COVID-19: Treatment Comparison Trial (J-PROTECT): Rationale, design, and methodology.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the mental health of people around the world. Anxiety related to infection, stress and stigma caused by the forced changes in daily life have reportedly increased the incidence and symptoms of depression, anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Under such circumstances, telepsychiatry is gaining importance and attracting a great deal of attention. However, few large pragmatic clinical trials on the use of telepsychiatry targeting multiple psychiatric disorders have been conducted to date. METHODS: The targeted study cohort will consist of adults (>18 years) who meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for either (1) depressive disorders, (2) anxiety disorders, or (3) obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Patients will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a "telepsychiatry group" (at least 50% of treatments to be conducted using telemedicine, with at least one face-to-face treatment [FTF] within six months) or an "FTF group" (all treatments to be conducted FTF, with no telemedicine). Both groups will receive the usual treatment covered by public medical insurance. The study will utilize a master protocol design in that there will be primary and secondary outcomes for the entire group regardless of diagnosis, as well as the outcomes for each individual disorder group. DISCUSSION: This study will be a non-inferiority trial to test that the treatment effect of telepsychiatry is not inferior to that of FTF alone. This study will provide useful insights into the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of psychiatry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCT1030210037, Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT).

Evaluation of subjective treatment satisfaction with antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients.

Adherence to antipsychotic treatment is particularly important in the long-term management of schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders since poor adherence to medication is associated with poor health outcomes. Although the patients' subjective satisfaction with the medication is crucial for adherence to medication, few studies have examined the relationship between subjective satisfaction with antipsychotics and adherence. In this study, we investigated subjective satisfaction with antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia by using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), a self-reporting instrument to assess the major dimensions of patients' satisfaction with their medication. The subjects included 121 clinically stabilized outpatients who met the following criteria: 1) patients between 20 and 65 years of age, diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders as defined by DSM-IV, 2) patients undergoing oral antipsychotic monotherapy or taking only an antiparkinsonian agent as an adjuvant remedy, and 3) patients who had received a stable dose of an antipsychotic for more than four weeks. Patients were asked to answer the TSQM questions, and their clinical symptoms were also evaluated by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Satisfaction with regard to side-effects (p=0.015) and global satisfaction (p=0.035) were significantly higher in patients taking second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs, n=111) than those taking first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs, n=10), whereas no significant difference was found between the two groups in clinical symptoms according to BPRS (p=0.637) or the Drug-induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS, p=0.209). In addition, correlations were not significant between the subjective satisfactions and clinician-rated objective measures of the symptoms. These findings suggest that SGAs have more favorable subjective satisfaction profiles than FGAs in the treatment of schizophrenia. Since it is often difficult to detect the difference by a traditional objective assessment of the patients, it is desirable that physicians pay attention to the patients' subjective satisfaction in conjunction with their own objective clinical assessment.