Adverse events in cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation training for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A mixed methods study and analysis plan for the TECTO trial.

Background: Knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD is sparse. No official guidelines exist for defining or monitoring adverse events in psychotherapy. Recent recommendations call for more qualitative and quantitative assessment of adverse events in psychotherapy trials. This mixed methods study aims to expand knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD. Methods: This is an analysis plan for a convergent mixed methods study within a randomized clinical trial (the TECTO trial). We include at least 128 youth aged 8-17 years with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Participants are randomized to either family-based cognitive behavioral therapy (FCBT) or family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT). Adverse events are monitored quantitatively with the Negative Effects Questionnaire. Furthermore, we assess psychiatric symptoms, global functioning, quality of life, and family factors to investigate predictors for adverse events. We conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with all youths and their parents on their experience of adverse events in FCBT or FPRT. For the mixed methods analysis, we will merge 1) a qualitative content analysis with descriptive statistics comparing the types, frequencies, and severity of adverse events; 2) a qualitative content analysis of the perceived causes for adverse events with prediction models for adverse events; and 3) a thematic analysis of the participants' treatment evaluation with a correlational analysis of adverse events and OCD severity. Discussion: The in-depth mixed methods analysis can inform 1) safer and more effective psychotherapy for OCD; 2) instruments and guidelines for monitoring adverse events; and 3) patient information on potential adverse events. The main limitation is risk of missing data. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03595098. Registered on July 23, 2018.

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents (the TECTO trial): a statistical analysis plan for the randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder which affects up to 3% of children and adolescents. OCD in children and adolescents is generally treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which, in more severely affected patients, can be combined with antidepressant medication. The TECTO trial aims to compare the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation/relaxation training (FPRT) in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. This statistical analysis plan outlines the planned statistical analyses for the TECTO trial. METHODS: The TECTO trial is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. Both groups undergo 14 sessions of 75 min each during a period of 16 weeks with either FCBT or FPRT depending on the allocation. Participants are randomised stratified by age and baseline Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score. The primary outcome is the CY-BOCS score. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life assessed using KIDSCREEN-10 and adverse events assessed by the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at the end of the intervention. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline value of the continuous outcome. Dichotomous outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables. The statistical analyses will be carried out by two independent blinded statisticians. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan includes a detailed predefined description of how data will be analysed and presented in the main publication before unblinding of study data. Statistical analysis plans limit selective reporting bias. This statistical analysis plan will increase the validity of the final trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03595098. July 23, 2018.

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the TECTO trial).

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8-17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient < 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. DISCUSSION: In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018.

Pharmacological interventions for benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the general population, with increased prevalence in psychiatric populations and the elderly. After long-term use it is often difficult to discontinue benzodiazepines due to psychological and physiological dependence. This review investigated if pharmacological interventions can facilitate benzodiazepine tapering. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions to facilitate discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to October 2017: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP, and ISRCTN registry, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment versus placebo or no intervention or versus another pharmacological intervention in adults who had been treated with benzodiazepines for at least two months and/or fulfilled criteria for benzodiazepine dependence (any criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials (involving 2543 participants), but we could only extract data from 35 trials with 2295 participants. Many different interventions were studied, and no single intervention was assessed in more than four trials. We extracted data on 18 different comparisons. The risk of bias was high in all trials but one. Trial Sequential Analysis showed imprecision for all comparisons.For benzodiazepine discontinuation, we found a potential benefit of valproate at end of intervention (1 study, 27 participants; risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 6.03; very low-quality evidence) and of tricyclic antidepressants at longest follow-up (1 study, 47 participants; RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.82; low-quality evidence).We found potentially positive effects on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms of pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.10 points, 95% CI -3.51 to -2.69; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.87; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -3.57 points, 95% CI -5.34 to -1.80; very low-quality evidence), tricyclic antidepressants (1 study, 38 participants; MD -19.78 points, 95% CI -20.25 to -19.31; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (3 studies, 58 participants; standardised mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.19; very low-quality evidence) at end of intervention. However, the positive effect of paroxetine on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms did not persist until longest follow-up (1 study, 54 participants; MD -0.13 points, 95% CI -4.03 to 3.77; very low-quality evidence).The following pharmacological interventions reduced symptoms of anxiety at end of intervention: carbamazepine (1 study, 36 participants; MD -6.00 points, 95% CI -9.58 to -2.42; very low-quality evidence), pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; MD -4.80 points, 95% CI -5.28 to -4.32; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -5.70 points, 95% CI -6.05 to -5.35; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -6.75 points, 95% CI -9.64 to -3.86; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (1 study, 18 participants; MD -1.30 points, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; very low-quality evidence).Two pharmacological treatments seemed to reduce the proportion of participants that relapsed to benzodiazepine use: valproate (1 study, 27 participants; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90; very low-quality evidence) and cyamemazine (1 study, 124 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence). Alpidem decreased the proportion of participants with benzodiazepine discontinuation (1 study, 25 participants; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2.3 participants; low-quality evidence) and increased the occurrence of withdrawal syndrome (1 study, 145 participants; RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 21.14; NNTH 5.9 participants; low-quality evidence). Likewise, magnesium aspartate decreased the proportion of participants discontinuing benzodiazepines (1 study, 144 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; NNTH 5.8; very low-quality evidence).Generally, adverse events were insufficiently reported. Specifically, one of the flumazenil trials was discontinued due to severe panic reactions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low or very low quality of the evidence for the reported outcomes, and the small number of trials identified with a limited number of participants for each comparison, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions to facilitate benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users. Due to poor reporting, adverse events could not be reliably assessed across trials. More randomised controlled trials are required with less risk of systematic errors ('bias') and of random errors ('play of chance') and better and full reporting of patient-centred and long-term clinical outcomes. Such trials ought to be conducted independently of industry involvement.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit adults with atrial fibrillation or those who had been treated for atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation is caused by multiple micro re-entry circuits within the atrial tissue, which result in chaotic rapid activity in the atria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based rehabilitation programmes, alone or with another intervention, compared with no-exercise training controls in adults who currently have AF, or have been treated for AF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases; CENTRAL and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection Thomson Reuters, CINAHL EBSCO, LILACS Bireme, and three clinical trial registers on 14 July 2016. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews identified by the searches. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with any type of no-exercise control. We included trials that included adults aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation, or post-treatment for atrial fibrillation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias using the domains outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by using standard Chi² and I² statistics. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models; we used standardised mean differences where different scales were used for the same outcome. We assessed the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis (TSA) and used the GRADE methodology to rate the quality of evidence, reporting it in the 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with a total of 421 patients with various types of atrial fibrillation. All trials were conducted between 2006 and 2016, and had short follow-up (eight weeks to six months). Risks of bias ranged from high risk to low risk.The exercise-based programmes in four trials consisted of both aerobic exercise and resistance training, in one trial consisted of Qi-gong (slow and graceful movements), and in another trial, consisted of inspiratory muscle training.For mortality, very low-quality evidence from six trials suggested no clear difference in deaths between the exercise and no-exercise groups (relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.78; participants = 421; I² = 0%; deaths = 2). Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggested no clear difference between groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; participants = 381; I² = 0%; events = 8). Low-quality evidence from two trials suggested no clear difference in health-related quality of life for the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary measure (mean difference (MD) 1.96, 95% CI -2.50 to 6.42; participants = 224; I² = 69%), or the SF-36 mental component summary measure (MD 1.99, 95% CI -0.48 to 4.46; participants = 224; I² = 0%). Exercise capacity was assessed by cumulated work, or maximal power (Watt), obtained by cycle ergometer, or by six minute walking test, or ergospirometry testing measuring VO2 peak. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity, measured by VO2 peak, more than no exercise (MD 3.76, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.15; participants = 208; I² = 0%); and very low-quality evidence from four studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise, measured by the six-minute walking test (MD 75.76, 95% CI 14.00 to 137.53; participants = 272; I² = 85%). When we combined the different assessment tools for exercise capacity, we found very low-quality evidence from six trials that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.26; participants = 359; I² = 65%). Overall, the quality of the evidence for the outcomes ranged from moderate to very-low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to few randomised patients and outcomes, we could not evaluate the real impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality or serious adverse events. The evidence showed no clinically relevant effect on health-related quality of life. Pooled data showed a positive effect on the surrogate outcome of physical exercise capacity, but due to the low number of patients and the moderate to very low-quality of the underpinning evidence, we could not be certain of the magnitude of the effect. Future high-quality randomised trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation on patient-relevant outcomes.

SheppHeartCABG trial-comprehensive early rehabilitation after coronary artery bypass grafting: a protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery often experience a range of symptoms. Studies indicate that non-pharmacological interventions such as exercise training and psychoeducation have a positive physiological and psychological effect in early outpatient rehabilitation. The SheppHeartCABG trial will investigate the effect of early comprehensive rehabilitation in early phase rehabilitation versus usual care. The aim of this paper is to present the protocol for the SheppHeartCABG trial. METHODS/ANALYSIS: SheppHeartCABG is an investigator-initiated randomised clinical superiority trial with blinded outcome assessment, employing 1:1 central randomisation to rehabilitation plus usual care versus usual care alone. On the basis of a sample size calculation, 326 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting will be included from two clinical sites. All patients receive usual care and patients allocated to the experimental intervention follow 4 weeks rehabilitation consisting of an exercise programme, psycho-educative consultations and a compact mindfulness programme. The primary outcome is physical function measured by the 6-min walk test. The secondary outcomes are mental health and physical activity measured by the Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-12), anxiety and depression measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire, physical, emotional and global scores by the HeartQoL questionnaire, sleep measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, pain measured by the Örebro Musculoskeletal Screening Questionnaire and muscle endurance measured by the sit-to-stand test. A number of explorative analyses will also be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: SheppHeartCABG is approved by the regional ethics committee (no. H-4-2014-109) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (no. 30-1309) and is performed in accordance with good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki in its latest form. Positive, neutral and negative results of the trial will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore, results will be presented at national and international conferences relevant to the subject fields. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02290262; pre-results.

Simulation-based multiprofessional obstetric anaesthesia training conducted in situ versus off-site leads to similar individual and team outcomes: a randomised educational trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of in situ simulation (ISS) versus off-site simulation (OSS) on knowledge, patient safety attitude, stress, motivation, perceptions of simulation, team performance and organisational impact. DESIGN: Investigator-initiated single-centre randomised superiority educational trial. SETTING: Obstetrics and anaesthesiology departments, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 100 participants in teams of 10, comprising midwives, specialised midwives, auxiliary nurses, nurse anaesthetists, operating theatre nurses, and consultant doctors and trainees in obstetrics and anaesthesiology. INTERVENTIONS: Two multiprofessional simulations (clinical management of an emergency caesarean section and a postpartum haemorrhage scenario) were conducted in teams of 10 in the ISS versus the OSS setting. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Knowledge assessed by a multiple choice question test. EXPLORATORY OUTCOMES: Individual outcomes: scores on the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, stress measurements (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, cognitive appraisal and salivary cortisol), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and perceptions of simulations. Team outcome: video assessment of team performance. Organisational impact: suggestions for organisational changes. RESULTS: The trial was conducted from April to June 2013. No differences between the two groups were found for the multiple choice question test, patient safety attitude, stress measurements, motivation or the evaluation of the simulations. The participants in the ISS group scored the authenticity of the simulation significantly higher than did the participants in the OSS group. Expert video assessment of team performance showed no differences between the ISS versus the OSS group. The ISS group provided more ideas and suggestions for changes at the organisational level. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised trial, no significant differences were found regarding knowledge, patient safety attitude, motivation or stress measurements when comparing ISS versus OSS. Although participant perception of the authenticity of ISS versus OSS differed significantly, there were no differences in other outcomes between the groups except that the ISS group generated more suggestions for organisational changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01792674.