Large simple trials in psychiatry: providing reliable answers to important clinical questions

Findings from an expert focus group on psychotropic medication deprescribing practices for children and youth with complex needs

Introduction

Psychotropic medication can be effective at stabilizing emotional and behavioural disturbances associated with physiological processes in children and youth. When medication benefits, indication or adverse effects are queried, deprescribing should be considered. Current guidelines for deprescribing are mainly for adults/elderly and largely theoretical, not practical, especially for polypharmacy.

Methods

At a tertiary center for children and youth with complex emotional and behavioural needs, physicians on staff have expertise in conducting assessments of medication efficacy, side effect burden, and safety concerns. Deprescribing is routinely undertaken in the context of inpatient and outpatient services in partnership with children/youth and their families. A qualitative initiative leveraged the specialized deprescribing expertise of eight physicians (six psychiatrists and two pediatricians).

Results

Emerging themes were medication review, timing, a stepwise approach, and setting conditions (inpatient and outpatient), with recurring subcategories of patient/family engagement as well as the underlying importance of continuity of care with psychosocial/behavioural supports.

Discussion

The findings from this expert focus group serve as a step towards supporting prescribing clinicians in mindful deprescribing when medications are no longer in the best interest of young patients.

OUP accepted manuscript

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and anxiety disorders (ANX) are common neurodevelopmental conditions with several overlapping symptoms. Notably, many children and adolescents with ASD also have an ANX diagnosis, suggesting shared pathological mechanisms. Here, we leveraged structural imaging and phenotypic data from 112 youth (33 ASD, 37 ANX, 42 typically developing controls) to assess shared and distinct cortical thickness patterns of the disorders. ANX was associated with widespread increases in cortical thickness, while ASD related to a mixed pattern of subtle increases and decreases across the cortical mantle. Despite the qualitative difference in the case–control contrasts, the statistical maps from the ANX-vs-controls and ASD-vs-controls analyses were significantly correlated when correcting for spatial autocorrelation. Dimensional analysis, regressing trait anxiety and social responsiveness against cortical thickness measures, partially recapitulated diagnosis-based findings. Collectively, our findings provide evidence for a common axis of neurodevelopmental disturbances as well as distinct effects of ASD and ANX on cortical thickness.

Psychotropic Polypharmacy in the US Pediatric Population: A Methodologic Critique and Commentary

Background: Psychotropic concomitant medication use for the treatment of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders has grown significantly in the U.S. over the past 25 years. The use of pharmacy claims to analyze these trends requires the following: age of the selected population, overlapping days of use, and precision of the outcome itself. This review will also address the gaps in reporting of pediatric psychotropic polypharmacy. Methods: An electronic literature search was undertaken for the period 2000 through 2020 using keywords such as "pediatric," "concomitant," "polypharmacy," "multiple medications," and "concurrent psychotropic"; Relevant references in textbooks were also used. Only English language and U.S. studies were included, resulting in 35 inter-class studies. Results: Studies were organized into seven groups according to data sources and clinical topics: (1) population surveys; (2a) multi-state publicly insured populations; (2b) single/two state studies; (3) privately insured populations; (4) diagnosed populations; (5) foster care populations; (6) special settings. Across 20 years it is apparent that pediatric psychotropic polypharmacy affects substantially more children and adolescents today than had been the case. As many as 300,000 youth now receive 3 or more classes concomitantly. The duration of concomitant use is relatively long, e.g., 69-89% of annual medicated days. Finally, more adverse event reports were associated with 3-class compared with 2-class drug regimens. Discussion: Factors that contribute to the growth of pediatric psychotropic polypharmacy include: (1) predominance of the biological model in psychiatric practice; (2) invalid assumptions on efficacy of combinations, (3) limited professional awareness of metabolic and neurological adverse drug events, and (4) infrequent use of appropriate deprescribing. Conclusion: A review of publications documenting U.S. pediatric psychotropic polypharmacy written over the last 20 years supports the need to standardize the methodologies used. The design of population-based studies should maximize information on the number of youth receiving regimens of 3-, 4-, and 5 or more concomitant classes and the duration of such use. Next, far more post-marketing research is needed to address the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of complex drug regimens prescribed for youngsters.

Exclusion criteria and generalizability in bipolar disorder treatment trials

Objective

The current paper reviews the English-language research on exclusion criteria in bipolar disorder treatment trials and discusses how study samples compare to the general bipolar patient population.

Methods

& Results: Across 8 identified studies of exclusion criteria and their impact, between 55% and 96% of people with bipolar disorder would be excluded from treatment research. The number of exclusion criteria varies across bipolar disorder treatment research, with one study estimate of a median of 7 criteria used across studies. The criteria that excluded the greatest number of potential participants were comorbid substance use disorder, suicidal risk, and comorbid medical conditions. Both studies that compared treatment responses among participants who met and did not meet exclusion criteria found no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions

Most potential participants are excluded from outcome research, which creates challenges for recruitment and limits generalizability of study findings. Common exclusionary practices lead to unrepresentative samples that limit generalizability and reduce the confidence of clinicians that findings can be translated to front-line practice with bipolar disorder patients.

Generalizability of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trial results for borderline personality disorder to community samples

The present study sought to quantify the generalizability of clinical trial results in individuals with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) to a large representative community sample. Data were derived from the 2004-2005 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a large nationally representative sample of 34,653 adults from the United States population. We applied a standard set of exclusion criteria representative of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with a DSM-IV diagnosis of BPD (n = 2,231). Our aim was to assess how many participants with BPD would not fulfill typical eligibility criteria. We found that more than 7 of 10 respondents in a typical pharmacological efficacy trial and more than 5 of 10 participants in a typical psychotherapy efficacy trial would have been excluded by at least 1 criterion. Having a current history of alcohol or drug use disorder and a lifetime history of bipolar disorder explained a large proportion of ineligibility in both pharmacological and psychotherapy efficacy trials. Clinical trials should carefully consider the impact of exclusion criteria on the generalizability of their results. As required by CONSORT guidelines, reporting exclusion rate estimate and reasons of eligibility should be mandatory in both clinical trials and meta-analyses. As treatment trials of borderline personality disorder move from efficacy to effectiveness to better inform clinical practice, the eligibility rate must be increased by imposing less stringent eligibility criteria to allow for more generalizable results.

Unmet needs in paediatric psychopharmacology: Present scenario and future perspectives

Paediatric psychopharmacology holds great promise in two equally important areas of enormous biomedical and social impact, namely the treatment of behavioural abnormalities in children and adolescents, and the prevention of psychiatric disorders with adolescent- or adult-onset. Yet, in striking contrast, pharmacological treatment options presently available in child and adolescent psychiatry are dramatically limited. The most important currently unmet needs in paediatric psychopharmacology are: the frequent off-label prescription of medications to children and adolescents based exclusively on data from randomized controlled studies involving adult patients; the frequent lack of age-specific dose, long-term efficacy and tolerability/safety data; the lack of effective medications for many paediatric psychiatric disorders, most critically autism spectrum disorder; the scarcity and limitations of randomized placebo-controlled trials in paediatric psychopharmacology; the unexplored potential for the prevention of psychiatric disorders with adolescent- and adult-onset; the current lack of biomarkers to predict treatment response and severe adverse effects; the need for better preclinical data to foster the successful development of novel drug therapies; and the effective dissemination of evidence-based treatments to the general public, to better inform patients and families of the benefits and risks of pharmacological interventions during development. Priorities and strategies are proposed to overcome some of these limitations, including the European Child and Adolescent Clinical Psychopharmacology Network, as an overarching Pan-European infrastructure aimed at reliably carrying out much needed psychopharmacological trials in children and adolescents, in order to fill the identified gaps and improve overall outcomes.

Practical clinical trials in psychopharmacology: a systematic review

Practical clinical trials (PCTs) are randomized experiments under typical practice conditions with the aim of testing the "real-life" benefits and risks of therapeutic interventions. Influential PCTs have been conducted in cardiology, oncology, and internal medicine. Psychotropic medications are widely and increasingly used in medical practice. This review examines recent progress in conducting PCTs in psychopharmacology. The January 2000 to October 2014 MEDLINE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for peer-reviewed publications of PCTs with at least 100 subjects per treatment arm. Most PCTs in psychiatry evaluated mental health services or psychosocial interventions rather than specific pharmacotherapies. Of 157 PCTs in psychiatry, 30 (19%) were in psychopharmacology, with a median of 2 publications per year and no increase during the period of observation. Sample size ranged from 200 to 18,154; only 11 studies randomized 500 patients or more. Psychopharmacology PCTs were equally likely to be funded by industry as by public agencies. There were 10 PCTs of antidepressants, for a total of 4206 patients (in comparison with at least 46 PCTs of antihypertensive medications, for a total of 208,014 patients). Some psychopharmacology PCTs used suicidal behavior, treatment discontinuation, or mortality as primary outcome and produced effectiveness and safety data that have influenced both practice guidelines and regulatory decisions. Practical clinical trials can constitute an important source of information for clinicians, patients, regulators, and policy makers but have been relatively underused in psychopharmacology. Electronic medical records and integrated practice research networks offer promising platforms for a more efficient conduct of PCTs.

Understanding the Antidepressant Debate in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder

There is a long-standing polemic concerning the usefulness of antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder. In this paper, we propose to highlight some aspects of this controversy by exploring the mutual influence of psychopharmacology and trial methodologies. Indeed, antidepressant efficacy, if not proved, was accepted before antidepressant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were run. While RCTs became a gold standard to meet the requirements of the regulatory bodies, methodological tools were required to measure outcomes and to test whether antidepressants provide statistically significant benefits as compared with a placebo. All these methodological options have nonetheless introduced fuzziness in our interpretation of study results, in terms of clinical meaningfulness and in terms of transposability to a real life settings. Additionally, selective publication raises concerns about the published literature, and results in many paradoxes. Instead of providing easy answers, the application of the RCT paradigm in MDD raises numerous questions. This is probably in the nature of all scientific studies, but it can be in contradiction with clinicians' expectations, who want to be sure that the treatment will (or will not) work for their individual patients.

Are participants in pharmacological and psychotherapy treatment trials for social anxiety disorder representative of patients in real-life settings?

BACKGROUND

The present study sought to quantify the generalizability of clinical trial results in individuals with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) to a large representative community sample.

METHODS

Data were derived from the 2004-2005 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a large nationally representative sample of 34,653 adults from the US population. We applied a standard set of exclusion criteria representative of pharmacological and psychotherapy clinical trials to all adults with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of SAD (n = 965) in the past 12 months and then to a subsample of participants seeking treatment (n = 363). Our aim was to assess how many participants with SAD would fulfill typical eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

We found that more than 7 of 10 respondents from the overall SAD sample in a typical pharmacological efficacy trial and more than 6 of 10 participants in a typical psychotherapy efficacy trial would have been excluded by at least 1 criterion. In addition, more than 8 of 10 respondents seeking treatment for SAD would have been excluded from participation in a typical pharmacological or psychotherapy efficacy trial. Having a current major depression explained a large proportion of ineligibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials should carefully consider the impact of exclusion criteria on the generalizability of their results and explain the rationale for their use. For SAD treatment trials to adequately inform clinical practice, the eligibility rate must be increased through a general relaxation of overly stringent eligibility criteria.

Risk factors for violence in psychosis: systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 110 studies

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews on risk and protective factors for violence in psychosis have produced contrasting findings. There is therefore a need to clarify the direction and strength of association of risk and protective factors for violent outcomes in individuals with psychosis.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using 6 electronic databases (CINAHL, EBSCO, EMBASE, Global Health, PsycINFO, PUBMED) and Google Scholar. Studies were identified that reported factors associated with violence in adults diagnosed, using DSM or ICD criteria, with schizophrenia and other psychoses. We considered non-English language studies and dissertations. Risk and protective factors were meta-analysed if reported in three or more primary studies. Meta-regression examined sources of heterogeneity. A novel meta-epidemiological approach was used to group similar risk factors into one of 10 domains. Sub-group analyses were then used to investigate whether risk domains differed for studies reporting severe violence (rather than aggression or hostility) and studies based in inpatient (rather than outpatient) settings.

FINDINGS

There were 110 eligible studies reporting on 45,533 individuals, 8,439 (18.5%) of whom were violent. A total of 39,995 (87.8%) were diagnosed with schizophrenia, 209 (0.4%) were diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and 5,329 (11.8%) were diagnosed with other psychoses. Dynamic (or modifiable) risk factors included hostile behaviour, recent drug misuse, non-adherence with psychological therapies (p values<0.001), higher poor impulse control scores, recent substance misuse, recent alcohol misuse (p values<0.01), and non-adherence with medication (p value <0.05). We also examined a number of static factors, the strongest of which were criminal history factors. When restricting outcomes to severe violence, these associations did not change materially. In studies investigating inpatient violence, associations differed in strength but not direction.

CONCLUSION

Certain dynamic risk factors are strongly associated with increased violence risk in individuals with psychosis and their role in risk assessment and management warrants further examination.

Randomized controlled trials for schizophrenia: study designs targeted to distinct goals

Randomized controlled trials for antipsychotic drugs have a variety of design features suited to diverse purposes. Efficacy (or explanatory) trials seek to establish if a drug can reduce psychotic symptoms under ideal circumstances. To isolate drug effects, researchers enroll carefully selected patients. Specialized research personnel use rating scales of symptoms that are sensitive to drug effects as the study primary outcomes. Large simple trials (LSTs) are conducted at typical treatment settings with usual clinical personnel and enroll large numbers of participants so small but clinically important differences between treatment options can be detected. LSTs focus narrowly on clearly defined, patient-oriented outcomes. To some extent, practical trials can be conceptualized as hybrids of efficacy and large simple trials. Practical trials provide independent evidence to inform decision makers about the everyday effectiveness of clinically relevant alternative interventions. Practical trial researchers include a heterogeneous population of patients and collect data on a broad range of meaningful health outcomes at many types of practice settings intended to represent usual treatment. The designers of practical trials make trade-offs between internal validity, external validity, the breadth of issues addressed, and the ability to detect small differences. The different objectives of trials should be considered in the interpretation of the complete body of randomized evidence on antipsychotic drugs.

Predictors of changes in needs for care in patients receiving community psychiatric treatment: a 4-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate changes and predictors of change in needs for care, as assessed by both patients and mental health professionals, in a sample of subjects receiving community-based psychiatric care.

METHOD

The study was conducted using a 4-year prospective longitudinal design. A cohort of patients from the South-Verona Community Mental Health Service (CMHS) was assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Camberwell Assessment of Need, both staff and patient versions. Predictors of changes in needs were explored using block-stratified multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

An overall stability for both patient-rated and staff-rated needs was found over time; however, significant changes in some specific need domains were found, such as self-rated health needs (improvement), self-rated social needs (deterioration) and staff-rated health needs (deterioration). Changes over time in self-rated and staff-rated needs are influenced by different and specific set of predictors, thus indicating that the two measures are not overlapping and convey different types of information.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the adoption of a negotiated approach in which both staff and users' views should be given equal weight when planning and providing needs-led mental health care.

Assessing the outcome of community-based psychiatric care: building a feedback loop from 'real world' health services research into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To describe the main characteristics of the South-Verona Outcome Project (SVOP) and to focus on its overall conceptual framework, with specific reference to the following perspectives: i) integrating evidence-based and practice-based approaches; ii) involving service professionals in routine outcome assessment; and iii) involving service users in mental health outcome assessment.

METHOD

A selective literature review of methodological and empirical papers addressing the relevance and usefulness of outcome research to routine clinical practice was performed.

RESULTS

Reviewed literature shows the need to integrate evidence-based and practice-based approaches and to involve service professionals in routine outcome assessment, by adopting a multiple perspective paradigm. Studies conducted in 'real world' health services indicate that the outcome of care is multifaceted and it can be perceived differently when different perspectives are taken into account. Such a complex picture can provide more comprehensive information on the effectiveness of care provided, to feed back positively into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The SVOP design and its methodological background were demonstrated to be appropriate for a detailed and routine assessment of outcome in the 'real world' of mental health services.

Meta-analysis in the assessment of treatment outcome

Randomized clinical trials provide the most reliable estimates of the benefits and harms of treatments. Limited sample sizes restrict their power to allow informative analyses of secondary outcomes, or patient subgroups. The overall results of trials only apply to the average patient and clinical application ignores the individual patient differences.Meta-analysis in the context of a systematic review can produce more precise estimates of effect by combining the results of primary studies. This is particularly valuable for investigating rare, but important outcomes such as suicide. Variations between the trial-specific results can be investigated by meta-regression. Individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) are potentially much more powerful designs because they allow analysis of patient-level variables. As more genetic factors are identified that might account for treatment variability between individuals, IPDMAs offer a powerful strategy that can be used on existing trial data sets. Despite practical difficulties, IPDMAs are increasingly being conducted.