Kousick Biswas

Modafinil for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence

AIM Modafinil was tested for efficacy in decreasing use in methamphetamine-dependent participants, compared to placebo. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, with 12 weeks of treatment and a 4-week follow-up. Eight outpatient substance abuse treatment clinics participated in the study. There were 210 treatment-seekers randomized, who all had a DSM-IV diagnosis of methamphetamine dependence; 68 participants to placebo, 72 to modafinil 200mg, and 70 to modafinil 400mg, taken once daily on awakening. Participants came to the clinic three times per week for assessments, urine drug screens, and group psychotherapy. The primary outcome measure was a methamphetamine non-use week, which required all the weeks qualitative urine drug screens to be negative for methamphetamine. RESULTS Regression analysis showed no significant difference between either modafinil group (200 or 400mg) or placebo in change in weekly percentage having a methamphetamine non-use week over the 12-week treatment period (p=0.53). Similarly, a number of secondary outcomes did not show significant effects of modafinil. However, an ad-hoc analysis of medication compliance, by urinalysis for modafinil and its metabolite, did find a significant difference in maximum duration of abstinence (23 days vs. 10 days, p=0.003), between those having the top quartile of compliance (>85% of urines were positive for modafinil, N=36), and the lower three quartiles of modafinil 200 and 400mg groups (N=106). CONCLUSIONS Although these data suggest that modafinil, plus group behavioral therapy, was not effective for decreasing methamphetamine use, the study is probably inconclusive because of inadequate compliance with taking medication.

Enhancing Multiyear Guideline Concordance for Bipolar Disorder Through Collaborative Care

OBJECTIVE Implementation of evidence-based care for serious mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder has been suboptimal. Improving and sustaining concordance with clinical practice guidelines has been a cornerstone of efforts to enhance evidence-based care and improve outcomes. For bipolar disorder, however, there has been only one regional controlled trial reporting guideline concordance, and no data are available for time periods longer than 1 year. In a multiregion effectiveness trial in veterans with bipolar disorder, the authors assessed the effects of a collaborative care model for this disorder on guideline concordance in care over a 3-year period. METHOD A total of 306 participants with bipolar disorder were randomly assigned at hospital discharge to 3 years of follow-up treatment with a collaborative care model or to usual care. The collaborative care model included provider support through simplified practice guidelines, patient skills management enhancement through group psychoeducation, and facilitated access and continuity via nurse care management. Concordance with guideline-recommended antimanic pharmacotherapy was assessed at baseline and prospectively over six 6-month epochs. Group differences were assessed with generalized estimating equations that controlled for relevant covariates. RESULTS The collaborative care model achieved significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant antimanic treatment than usual care over the entire follow-up period. Baseline guideline concordance, but not patient age or bipolar type, was associated with higher concordance. CONCLUSIONS Multicomponent collaborative care models, which include not only provider support for guideline implementation but also patient self-management skill enhancement and facilitated treatment access and continuity, can improve guideline concordance over the long term, even in severely impaired patients.

Factors associated with prospective long-term treatment adherence among individuals with bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE Clinical characteristics, adverse effects of medication, and treatment attitudes have been associated with adherence in bipolar populations in cross-sectional studies. The aim of this secondary analysis from a larger study was to identify the association between baseline variables and average treatment adherence over a subsequent three-year period. METHODS Veterans with bipolar disorder were evaluated on self-reported adherence status at baseline and every six months over a three-year period. The sample was dichotomized into two clinically relevant categories: those who were primarily adherent and those who were primarily nonadherent. Demographic and clinical variables were examined for the two groups of patients in relation to their average adherence over the three-year period. RESULTS The study recruited a sample of 306 persons with severe bipolar disorder. The sample was predominantly male (278 men, or 91%), with a mean+/-SD age of 46.6+/-10.1 years. A total of 240 individuals (78%) were largely adherent to treatment, and 37 individuals (12%) were largely nonadherent to treatment. Nonadherent individuals were less likely to be on intensive somatotherapy regimens (p=.001); experienced more barriers to care, including lack of telephone access (p<.05) and life obligations and commitments (p<.05); and had more prior suicide attempts (p=.003). CONCLUSIONS Nonadherent individuals with bipolar disorder received less intensive pharmacologic treatments, had more suicide attempts, and experienced more barriers to care than adherent individuals. Nonadherence may have system as well as patient components. Consideration of nonadherence as a function of both patient factors and system factors will enhance our ability to understand nonadherence and intervene more effectively.

Is the collaborative chronic care model effective for patients with bipolar disorder and co-occurring conditions?

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of bipolar collaborative chronic care models (B-CCMs) among those with co-occurring substance use, psychiatric, and/or medical conditions has not specifically been assessed. We assessed whether B-CCM effects are equivalent comparing those with and without co-occurring conditions. METHODS We reanalyzed data from the VA Cooperative Study #430 (n=290), an 11-site randomized controlled trial of the B-CCM compared to usual care. Moderators included common co-occurring conditions observed in patients with bipolar disorder, including substance use disorders (SUD), anxiety, psychosis; medical comorbidities (total number), and cardiovascular disease-related conditions (CVD). Mixed-effects regression models were used to determine interactive effects between moderators and 3-year primary outcomes. RESULTS Treatment effects were comparable for those with and without co-occurring substance use and psychiatric conditions, although possibly less effective in improving physical quality of life in those with CVD-related conditions (Beta=-6.11;p=0.04). LIMITATIONS Limitations included multiple comparisons and underpowered analyses of moderator effects. CONCLUSIONS B-CCM effects were comparable in patients with co-occurring conditions, indicating that the intervention may be generally applied. Specific attention to physical quality of life in those with CVD maybe warranted.

A prospective study of the impact of comorbid medical disease on bipolar disorder outcomes

BACKGROUND Several studies suggest that medical comorbidity is associated with worse clinical status in bipolar disorder. It is unclear which aspect of medical comorbidity is responsible: simple disease count, risk for future morbidity, or current physical burden. METHODS We analyzed three years of prospective data from a randomized clinical trial of collaborative care in 306 bipolar veterans. We examined the association of clinical outcome with baseline medical comorbidity defined as: (1) simple active disease count, (2) diseases with risk for future morbidity measured with the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and (3) current physical burden measured with the SF-36 Physical Component Summary score (PCS). Bipolar outcomes were weeks in episode, mean depression score, and change in mental health burden measured by the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score (MCS). RESULTS The three medical comorbidity measures were not highly correlated, indicating that each conveyed novel information. Controlling for potential confounders, worse baseline PCS predicted significantly higher mean depression scores (p=0.011) and less improvement in MCS scores (p=0.0099) over three years. Simple disease count and risk for future risk did not predict worse bipolar outcomes. LIMITATIONS Some potential limitations include not accounting for all confounding factors, selection bias for participants, increased the likelihood of Type I error due to multiple comparisons and having a predominantly male population. CONCLUSIONS This long-term prospective study extends cross-sectional and retrospective research on the link between medical illness and bipolar outcomes. It is the current experience of burden of physical illness, rather than an unweighted or weighted disease count, that leads to worse bipolar outcomes.

Choice of Vein‐Harvest Technique for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Rationale and Design of the REGROUP Trial

The Randomized Endo‐vein Graft Prospective (REGROUP) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01850082) is a randomized, intent‐to‐treat, 2‐arm, parallel‐design, multicenter study funded by the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP No. 588) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Cardiac surgeons at 16 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers with technical expertise in performing both endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) and open vein harvesting (OVH) were recruited as the REGROUP surgeon participants. Subjects requiring elective or urgent coronary artery bypass grafting using cardiopulmonary bypass with use of ≥1 saphenous vein graft will be screened for enrollment using pre‐established inclusion/exclusion criteria. Enrolled subjects (planned N = 1150) will be randomized to 1 of the 2 arms (EVH or OVH) after an experienced vein harvester has been assigned. The primary outcomes measure is the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Subject assessments will be performed at multiple times, including at baseline, intraoperatively, postoperatively, and at discharge (or 30 days after surgery, if still hospitalized). Assessment of leg‐wound complications will be completed at 6 weeks after surgery. Telephone follow‐ups will occur at 3‐month intervals after surgery until the participating sites are decommissioned after the trials completion (approximately 4.5 years after the full study startup). To assess long‐term outcomes, centralized follow‐up of MACE for 2 additional years will be centrally performed using VA and non‐VA clinical and administrative databases. The primary MACE outcome will be compared between the 2 arms, EVH and OVH, at the end of the trial duration.

A phase III, randomized, multi-center, double blind, placebo controlled study of safety and efficacy of lofexidine for relief of symptoms in individuals undergoing inpatient opioid withdrawal

BACKGROUND Lofexidine is an alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist approved in the United Kingdom (UK) for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. Lofexidine has demonstrated better efficacy than placebo for reducing opioid withdrawal symptoms in patients undergoing opioid withdrawal with less reported hypotension than clonidine. METHODS Designed as an FDA registration trial, this 8-day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 264 patients dependent on short-acting opioids evaluated the efficacy of lofexidine hydrochloride in reducing withdrawal symptoms in patients undergoing opioid withdrawal. The primary efficacy measures were SOWS-Gossop on Day 3 and time-to-dropout. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants who were completers; area under the 5-day SOWS-Gossop - time curve (i.e., AUC1-5), and daily mean SOWS-Gossop, OOWS-Handelsman, MCGI (subject and rater), and VAS-E scores. Participants received lofexidine HCl 3.2mg daily in four divided doses or matching placebo on Days 1-5, followed by 2days of placebo. RESULTS Lofexidine significantly decreased mean Day 3 SOWS scores compared to placebo, 6.32 versus 8.67, respectively, p=0.0212. Fewer lofexidine patients were early terminators compared to placebo (59 versus 80, respectively); and non-completers in the lofexidine group remained in the study longer than those assigned to placebo (p=0.0034). Secondary endpoints consistently favored lofexidine. Lofexidine was well tolerated in this trial. CONCLUSION Lofexidine significantly decreased SOWS scores compared to placebo and demonstrated better retention rates in participants undergoing opioid withdrawal. Lofexidine potentially offers a useful non-opioid alternative to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms.

Design and challenges for a randomized, multi-site clinical trial comparing the use of service dogs and emotional support dogs in Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a leading cause of impairments in quality of life and functioning among Veterans. Service dogs have been promoted as an effective adjunctive intervention for PTSD, however published research is limited and design and implementation flaws in published studies limit validated conclusions. This paper describes the rationale for the study design, a detailed methodological description, and implementation challenges of a multisite randomized clinical trial examining the impact of service dogs on the on the functioning and quality of life of Veterans with PTSD. Trial design considerations prioritized participant and intervention (dog) safety, selection of an intervention comparison group that would optimize enrollment in all treatment arms, pragmatic methods to ensure healthy well-trained dogs, and the selection of outcomes for achieving scientific and clinical validity in a Veteran PTSD population. Since there is no blueprint for conducting a randomized clinical trial examining the impact of dogs on PTSD of this size and scope, it is our primary intent that the successful completion of this trial will set a benchmark for future trial design and scientific rigor, as well as guiding researchers aiming to better understand the role that dogs can have in the management of Veterans experiencing mental health conditions such as PTSD.

Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on treatment-resistant major depression in US veterans: a randomized clinical trial

Importance Treatment-resistant major depression (TRMD) in veterans is a major clinical challenge given the high risk for suicidality in these patients. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) offers the potential for a novel treatment modality for these veterans. Objective To determine the efficacy of rTMS in the treatment of TRMD in veterans. Design, Setting, and Participants A double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016, in 9 Veterans Affairs medical centers. A total of 164 veterans with TRD participated. Interventions Participants were randomized to either left prefrontal rTMS treatment (10 Hz, 120% motor threshold, 4000 pulses/session) or to sham (control) rTMS treatment for up to 30 treatment sessions. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary dependent measure of the intention-to-treat analysis was remission rate (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score ⩽10, indicating that depression is in remission and not a clinically significant burden), and secondary analyses were conducted on other indices of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and quality of life. Results The 164 participants had a mean (SD) age of 55.2 (12.4) years, 132 (80.5%) were men, and 126 (76.8%) were of white race. Of these, 81 were randomized to receive active rTMS and 83 to receive sham. For the primary analysis of remission, there was no significant effect of treatment (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.59-2.26; P = .67). At the end of the acute treatment phase, 33 of 81 (40.7%) of those in the active treatment group achieved remission of depressive symptoms compared with 31 of 83 (37.4%) of those in the sham treatment group. Overall, 64 of 164 (39.0%) of the participants achieved remission. Conclusions and Relevance A total of 39.0% of the veterans who participated in this trial experienced clinically significant improvement resulting in remission of depressive symptoms; however, there was no evidence of difference in remission rates between the active and sham treatments. These findings may reflect the importance of close clinical surveillance, rigorous monitoring of concomitant medication, and regular interaction with clinic staff in bringing about significant improvement in this treatment-resistant population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191333

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant major depression (TRMD) Veteran patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundEvaluation of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant major depression (TRMD) in Veterans offers unique clinical trial challenges. Here we describe a randomized, double-blinded, intent-to-treat, two-arm, superiority parallel design, a multicenter study funded by the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP No. 556) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs.MethodsWe recruited medical providers with clinical expertise in treating TRMD at nine Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers as the trial local investigators. We plan to enroll 360 Veterans diagnosed with TRMD at the nine VA medical centers over a 3-year period. We will randomize participants into a double-blinded clinical trial to left prefrontal rTMS treatment or to sham (control) rTMS treatment (180 participants each group) for up to 30 treatment sessions. All participants will meet Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4thedition (DSM-IV) criteria for major depression and will have failed at least two prior pharmacological interventions. In contrast with other rTMS clinical trials, we will not exclude Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or history of substance abuse and we will obtain detailed history regarding these disorders. Furthermore, we will maintain participants on stable anti-depressant medication throughout the trial. We will evaluate all participants on a wide variety of potential predictors of treatment response including cognitive, psychological and functional parameters.DiscussionThe primary dependent measure will be remission rate (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD24) ≤ 10), and secondary analyses will be conducted on other indices. Comparisons between the rTMS and the sham groups will be made at the end of the acute treatment phase to test the primary hypothesis. The unique challenges to performing such a large technically challenging clinical trial with Veterans and potential avenues for improvement of the design in future trials will be described.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01191333. Registered on 26 August 2010. This report is based on the protocol version 4.6 amended in February 2016. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set are listed in Appendix A.