Randomized controlled trial for selective preventive transdiagnostic intervention for adolescents at risk for emotional disorders

Significant evidence does exist on the effectiveness of transdiagnostic interventions to improve emotional problems in clinical populations, and their application as universal and indicated prevention programs. However, no randomized controlled trials (RCT) studying selective transdiagnostic prevention intervention have been published. This is the first known RCT to evaluate the efficacy/effectiveness of an evidence-based selective prevention transdiagnostic program for emotional problems in adolescents. The impact of three different interventions was evaluated: (1) PROCARE (Preventive transdiagnostic intervention for Adolescents at Risk for Emotional disorders), which is a group-based, abbreviated version of the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders in Adolescents (UP-A), along with adding a booster session to reduce risk of onset of anxiety and depression, (2) PROCARE + , which includes the PROCARE protocol along with personalized add-on modules tailored to match adolescents' risk factors, and (3) an active control condition (ACC) based on emotional psychoeducation. In total, 208 adolescents (48.5% girls) evidencing high risk and low protective factors were randomized and allocated to PROCARE, PROCARE + or ACC. Data from 153 adolescents who completed all assessments in the different phases of the study were analyzed. Self- and parent-reported measures were taken at baseline, as well as after the intervention, a 6 month follow-up was carried out, together with a 1 month follow-up after the booster session. Differences between conditions were significant on most of the outcome measures, with superior effect sizes for PROCARE + in the short and long term. Interventions were acceptable in terms of acceptability, with good satisfaction rates. Tailored targeted selective transdiagnostic interventions focused on mitigating risk factors and promoting protective factors in vulnerable adolescents are promising.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders

BACKGROUND

Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Do psychological interventions reduce symptoms of depression for patients with bipolar I or II disorder? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychological therapies may play an important role in the treatment of bipolar disorders. Several meta-analyses that examine the effectiveness of psychotherapies for patients with bipolar disorder include conclusions about the impact upon bipolar depression. However, these tend not to consider differences in depression outcome depending upon whether the therapy primarily targets acute depression, nor severity of baseline depression. This may affect the conclusions drawn about the effectiveness of these therapies for acute bipolar depression treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis explored the effectiveness of psychological therapies in reducing bipolar depression, in particular examining whether: (1) the effect of therapy is greater when baseline depressive symptoms are more severe, and (2) the effect of therapy is greater when the primary focus of the therapy is the treatment of acute bipolar depression?

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted using the following electronic databases; Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (1996), MEDLINE (1966 onwards), EMBASE (1980 onwards), PsycINFO (1974 onwards), Scopus, Web of Science and Clinical Trials Registries (listed at:https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/clinical-trial-registries/index.html).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials evaluating a psychological intervention for adults diagnosed with Bipolar I or II disorder. The comparators were usual care, wait-list, placebo, active treatment control. Post-treatment depression status was required to be measured continuously using a validated self- or observer- report measure, or categorically by a validated diagnostic instrument or clinical diagnosis by a suitably qualified person.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full texts. Two reviewers conducted each stage until agreement was reached, and both independently extracted study information. Means, standard deviations (SDs) and number of participants were retrieved from articles and used to perform a meta-analysis. The primary outcome was depressive symptom score.

RESULTS

The database search identified 6388 studies. After removing the duplicates, 3298 studies remained, of which, 28 studies were included in the qualitative review and 22 in the meta-analysis. Effect sizes range from -1.99 [-2.50, -1.49] to 0.89 [-0.12, 1.90]. There was low quality evidence of a significant effect on symptoms of depression for cognitive behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy. Trials of psychoeducation, mindfulness-based therapy, family therapy and interpersonal and social rhythm therapy showed no evidence of any effect on depression. We found no significant relationship between baseline depression score and depression outcome post-treatment when we controlled for therapy type and comparator. The result also showed that the effect sizes for studies targeting acute depression to be tightly clustered around a small overall effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

Some psychological therapies may reduce acute bipolar depression although this conclusion should be viewed with caution given the low quality of evidence. More research using similar therapy types and comparators is needed to better understand the relationship between depression status at baseline and outcome.

An internet-based emotion regulation intervention versus no intervention for nonsuicidal self-injury in adolescents: study protocol for a feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) has gained increased attention in recent years due to increased prevalence, especially among adolescents. Evidence-based interventions for NSSI are sparse. Emotion regulation individual therapy for adolescents (ERITA) is an online intervention that needs investigation. Non-randomised studies suggest ERITA improves emotion regulations skills and reduces NSSI frequency. Before conducting a large pragmatic randomised clinical trial, we aim to investigate the feasibility of ERITA in Denmark.

METHODS

A randomised, parallel group feasibility trial comparing ERITA as add on to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual in 30 adolescents age 13-17 years with recurrent NSSI referred to outpatient clinics in The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark. Feasibility outcomes are (1) completion of follow-up, (2) the fraction of eligible participants who consent to inclusion and randomisation and (3) compliance with the intervention. Clinical outcomes such as self-injury frequency and the ability to regulate emotions will be investigated exploratorily.

DISCUSSION

Internet-based interventions are assumed to be appealing to adolescents by being easily accessible and easy to navigate by tech natives. Disclosure of self-injury behaviour may be facilitated by an online intervention. The evidence for self-injury specific treatment needs to be extended but prior to a large clinical trial, the feasibility of methods and procedures must be assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT04243603 .