Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an electronic mindfulness-based intervention to improve maternal mental health in the peripartum: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal women are highly vulnerable to developing mental health issues and particularly susceptible to a recurrence of psychiatric illness. Poor mental health during the perinatal period can have long-term impacts on the physical and psychiatric health of both mother and child. A potentially useful strategy to improve women's mental health is through a mobile application teaching mindfulness, an evidence-based technique helping individuals focus on the present moment. METHODS: A mixed method, prospective randomised controlled trial. The study group comprise women aged 18 years and over, who are attending the public and private maternity clinics at Mater Mothers' Hospital. A sample of 360 prenatal women will be randomised into the intervention group (with the use of the mindfulness app) or usual care. Participants will remain in the study for 11 months and will be assessed at four timepoints for changes in postnatal depression, mother-infant bonding, and quality of life. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will also be conducted using quality-adjusted life year (QALY) calculations. A random selection of intervention participants will be invited to attend focus groups to give feedback on the mindfulness app. DISCUSSION: Previous studies have found mindfulness interventions can reduce stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances in a prenatal population. The risks of the intervention are low, but could be of significant benefit for women who are unable to attend face-to-face appointments due to geographical, financial, or time barriers; during endemic or pandemic scenarios; or due to health or mobility issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Mater Misericordiae Human Research Ethics Committee (83,589). Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12622001581752 ( https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385107&isReview=true ). Registered on 22 Dec. 2022.

Effects of first-generation antipsychotics versus second-generation antipsychotics on quality of life in schizophrenia: a double-blind, randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Whether or not second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) represent an advantage over first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in the treatment of schizophrenia is not certain. Effectiveness studies published in the past 10 years have not unequivocally confirmed the superiority of SGAs over FGAs. We aimed to compare quality of life in patients with schizophrenia on an FGA strategy with those on an SGA strategy. METHODS: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind Neuroleptic Strategy Study (NeSSy), we recruited participants (aged 18-65 years) with schizophrenia (ICD-10: F20.X) who required treatment initiation or a change in treatment, from 14 psychiatric university hospitals and state hospitals in Germany. Double randomisation allowed for restricted selection of a treatment within each antipsychotic drug group (FGA or SGA) for an individual patient: first, patients were assigned with a random number table to two of six possible drug pairs, each pair consisting of an FGA (haloperidol [3-6 mg] or flupentixol [6-12 mg]) given orally and an SGA (aripiprazole [10-20 mg], olanzapine [10-20 mg], or quetiapine [400-800 mg]) given orally, and the investigator then selected which pair was best suited to the patient; a second, double-blind random assignment allocated either the FGA or the SGA from the investigator-chosen pair to the patient. Treatment duration was 24 weeks. Primary outcomes were change from baseline to week 24 in quality of life (SF-36) and clinical global impression (CGI-I), analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. Safety was assessed in a safety set, consisting of all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study drug, coinciding with the set of the efficacy analyses. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01164059; German Clinical Trials Register, number DRKS00000304; WHO ICTRP, number U1111-1112-9727; and EudraCT, number 2009-010966-47. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2010, and May 31, 2013, 149 patients were randomly assigned, 69 to FGA treatment and 80 to SGA treatment. 136 patients received at least one dose of study drug (63 in the FGA group, 73 in the SGA group). Mean area under the curve (AUC) values of SF-36 were significantly higher in the SGA group than in the FGA group (85·1 [SD 14·7] vs 79·7 [17·3], p=0·0112). Mean AUC values for CGI-I scores decreased in both groups, but were not significantly different between the two groups (3·39 [SD 0·89] in the FGA group vs 3·26 [0·92] in the SGA group, p=0·3423). 30 (48%) of 63 patients given FGAs had at least one adverse event compared with 42 (57%) of 73 patients given an SGA (p=0·3019); the most common were nervous system disorders (18 [60%] of 30 in the FGA group vs 19 [45%] of 42 in the SGA group) and psychiatric disorders (ten [33%] vs 16 [38%]). One patient died after cessation of study drug (olanzapine), most likely as a result of an illicit drug overdose. The increase in body-mass index (BMI) was significantly higher in the SGA group than in the FGA group (p=0·0021 at week 6 and p=0·0041 at week 24). INTERPRETATION: Improvement of patient-reported quality of life was significantly higher in patients with schizophrenia given SGAs than in those given FGAs, when treatment selection was individualised. This advantage, however, has to be weighed against the potential metabolic adverse effects of some SGAs. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Patient-oriented randomisation: A new trial design applied in the Neuroleptic Strategy Study.

BACKGROUND: The 'gold standard' for clinical studies is a randomised controlled trial usually comparing specific treatments. If the scientific study expands to strategy comparison with each strategy including various treatments, the research problems are increasingly complicated. The strategy debate in the psychiatric community is the starting point for the development of our new design. It is widely accepted that second-generation antipsychotics are the therapy of choice in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, their general superiority over first-generation antipsychotics could not be demonstrated in recent randomised controlled trials. Furthermore, we are becoming increasingly aware that the experimental conditions of randomised controlled trials, as in the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial and Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness Phase 1 studies, may be inappropriate for psychiatric treatments. The high heterogeneity in the patient population produces discrepancies between daily clinical perception and randomised controlled trials results. The patient-oriented approach in the Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic drugs in Schizophrenia Study reflects everyday clinical practice. The results, however, are highly dependent on the physicians' preferences. The goal of the design described here is to take an intermediate path between randomised controlled trials and clinical studies such as Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study, combining the advantages of both study types. METHODS: The idea is to randomise two treatment pairs each consisting of one first-generation antipsychotic and one second-generation antipsychotic in a first step and subsequently, to involve the investigators in deciding for a pair most appropriate to the patients' needs and then to randomise the allocation to one drug (first-generation antipsychotic or second-generation antipsychotic) of that chosen pair. This idea was first implemented in the clinical trial, the Neuroleptic Strategy Study, with a randomised design comparing efficacy and safety of two different strategies: either to use first-generation antipsychotics (haloperidol and flupentixol) or second-generation antipsychotics (olanzapine, aripiprazole and quetiapine) in patients suffering from schizophrenia. RESULTS: In the course of the Neuroleptic Strategy Study, feasibility of this design was demonstrated. All aspects of the new design were implemented: randomisation process, documentation of responses from investigators as well as patients and drug logistic experience. In implementing the design, furthermore, we could investigate its theoretical properties. The physicians' preferences for specific drugs used for the respective patients were analysed. CONCLUSION: The idea of patient-oriented randomisation can be generalised. In light of the heterogeneity and complexity of patient-drug interaction, this design should prove particularly useful.