New Diabetic Treatment by Alleviation of Autonomic Nervous System Dysfunction Measured as Periosteal Pressure Sensitivity at Sternum Improves Empowerment, Treatment Satisfaction, and Self-Reported Health of People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial.

Purpose: Autonomic nervous system dysfunction (ANSD), for which presently no treatment exists, has a negative impact on prognosis in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Periosteal pressure sensitivity (PPS) on sternum may be a measure of autonomic nervous system dysfunction (ANSD). We tested if a non-pharmacological PPS-feedback-guided treatment program based on non-noxious sensory nerve stimulation, known to reduce PPS, changed empowerment, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life in people with T2D, compared to usual treatment. Patients and Methods: Analysis of secondary endpoints in a single center, two-armed, parallel-group, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial of individuals with T2D. Participants were randomized to non-pharmacological intervention as an add-on to treatment as usual. Endpoints were evaluated by five validated questionnaires: Diabetes specific Empowerment (DES-SF), Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction (DTSQ), quality of life (QOL) (WHO-5), clinical stress signs (CSS), and self-reported health (SF-36). Sample size calculation was based on the primary endpoint HbA1c. Results: We included 144 participants, 71 allocated to active intervention and 73 to the control group. Active intervention compared to control revealed improved diabetes-specific empowerment (p = 0.004), DTSQ (p = 0.001), and SF-36 self-reported health (p=0.003) and tended to improve quality of life (WHO-5) (p = 0.056). The findings were clinically relevant with a Cohen's effect size of 0.5 to 0.7. Conclusion: This non-pharmacological intervention, aiming to reduce PPS, and thus ANSD, improved diabetes-specific empowerment, treatment satisfaction, and self-reported health when compared to usual treatment. The proposed intervention may be a supplement to conventional treatment for T2D.

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.