Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: results and lessons of an underpowered randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: As lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of deliberate self-harm (DSH) in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, we designed a pragmatic randomised trial to assess its efficacy in more than 200 patients with treatment-resistant depression. However, we randomised 56 patients only. The aim of this report is therefore twofold: first, to disseminate the results of this underpowered study which may be incorporated into future meta-analytical reviews; second, to analyse some critical aspects of the study which might explain failure to reach the target sample size. METHODS: We carried out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode were allocated to add lithium to usual care (intervention arm) versus usual care alone (control arm). Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up constituted the composite primary outcome. RESULTS: Of 58 patients screened for inclusion, 29 were allocated to lithium plus usual care and 27 were assigned to usual care without lithium. Six patients in the lithium plus usual care group and seven in the usual care group committed acts of DSH during the follow-up phase. The survival probability did not differ between the two treatment arms (Chi2 = 0.17, p =0.676). With regard to changes in the severity of depressive symptomatology from baseline to endpoint, no significant differences were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to achieve the minimum sample size needed to detect a clinically meaningful difference between the two treatment arms. Consequently, the finding that lithium, in addition to usual care, did not exert a positive effect in terms of reduction of DSH after 12 months of follow-up is likely due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference, if a difference existed. The dissemination of the results of this underpowered study will inform future meta-analytical reviews on lithium and suicide-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.

Effectiveness of lithium in subjects with treatment-resistant depression and suicide risk: a protocol for a randomised, independent, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on therapeutic interventions following deliberate self harm (DSH) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are very scant and there is no unanimous consensus on the best pharmacological option for these patients. There is some evidence that lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of completed suicide in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, however no clear cut results have been found so far. The primary aim of the present study is to assess whether adding lithium to standard therapy is an effective treatment strategy to reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour in long term treatment of people with TRD and previous history of DSH. METHODS/DESIGN: We will carry out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode will be allocated to add lithium to current therapy (intervention arm) or not (control arm). Following randomisation, treatment is to be taken daily for 1 year unless some clear reason to stop develops. Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up will constitute the composite primary outcome. To preserve outcome assessor blindness, an independent adjudicating committee, blind to treatment allocation, will anonymously review all outcome events. DISCUSSION: The results of this study should indicate whether lithium treatment is associated with lower risk of completed suicide and DSH in adult patients with treatment resistant unipolar depression, who recently attempted suicide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.

Rationale and design of an independent randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of aripiprazole or haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: One third to two thirds of people with schizophrenia have persistent psychotic symptoms despite clozapine treatment. Under real-world circumstances, the need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine has been cited as the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination treatment strategies. In a clinical area where the pressing need of providing therapeutic answers has progressively increased the occurrence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, despite the lack of robust evidence of its efficacy, we sought to implement a pre-planned protocol where two alternative therapeutic answers are systematically provided and evaluated within the context of a pragmatic, multicentre, independent randomised study. METHODS/DESIGN: The principal clinical question to be answered by the present project is the relative efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole compared with combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with an incomplete response to treatment with clozapine over an appropriate period of time. This project is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial that follow patients over a period of 12 months. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months is the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: The implementation of the protocol presented here shows that it is possible to create a network of community psychiatric services that accept the idea of using their everyday clinical practice to produce randomised knowledge. The employed pragmatic attitude allowed to randomly allocate more than 100 individuals, which means that this study is the largest antipsychotic combination trial conducted so far in Western countries. We expect that the current project, by generating evidence on whether it is clinically useful to combine clozapine with aripiprazole rather than with haloperidol, provides physicians with a solid evidence base to be directly applied in the routine care of patients with schizophrenia.

What happens to patients seen only once by psychiatric services? Findings from a follow-up study.

The aim of this study was to identify patient characteristics associated with once-only contact with a community-based mental health service (CMHS) and to re-evaluate these patients 3 months after the contact. A 33-month cohort of new episodes of care was followed up to identify and interview once-only contact patients. Of the 1101 patients who met the study criteria, 165 (15%) were discharged after the first contact, 87 (8%) dropped out after the first contact, 440 (40%) were low users and 409 (37%) were high users of the CMHS in the 90 days after the first contact. A higher score on the Global Assessment of Functioning scale, less severe psychiatric diagnoses and lower socioeconomic status were the factors most associated with once-only contact at baseline. At follow-up clinical conditions of patients who had only one contact (both discharged patients and drop-outs) had improved and, in most cases, they were in contact with other services. Drop-out patients, however, were more unwell and less satisfied with the initial contact. This dissatisfaction may have led these patients to seek help elsewhere. It is possible that some of these extremely low users are in need of a different or more specialized clinical treatment approach.

Factors associated with clinicians' dispositions in an out-patient psychiatric department.

AIM: This cross-sectional study attempted to identify factors associated with clinicians' dispositions of patients after the first visit in an out-patient psychiatric department. METHODS: Over a 33-month period, all new episodes of care with the department were included in the study. For each patient, socio-demographic, clinical information and contact characteristics were prospectively collected in relation to the first visit, as was information on case disposition. Factors associated with clinicians' disposition were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 1,138 patients who met the study criteria, 848 (75%) were followed up by the department, 150 (13%) were referred to other services and 140 (12%) were discharged. Suffering from a major psychiatric disorder, being younger and not living in an institution influenced clinicians' disposition to follow-up patients. Older age increased the chances of being referred to other services rather than discharged. CONCLUSIONS: Examining decision-making behaviour in out-patient psychiatric departments is a worthwhile endeavour because this setting represents the main entry point of modern and accessible community-based systems of care. The findings confirmed the importance of psychiatric determinants in the dispositional process and contribute to make clinicians more aware of other factors related to their decision-making.