Availles Limouzine, France

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Adolescent Depression (STAR-AD)

This is an open-label Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) of 16 weeks duration with two levels, each stage 8 weeks. In phase 1, adolescents with MDD will be selected into fluoxetine or fluoxetine combination CBT therapy groups and the choice of treatment will be at the discretion of the patient. Subjects who fail to respond will enter phase 2 randomization， where patients will be randomly assigned to oral sertraline, votioxetine, duloxetine or adding one of aripiprazole, lithium carbonate, and olanzapine to fluoxetine. The primary outcome of the treatment phase is the treatment remission rate and response rate. Secondary outcomes included: symptom scale; Quality of life; Sleep therapy; Symptoms of anxiety; Rumination and safety assessment.

The Effect of a Six Week Intensified Pharmacological Treatment for Bipolar Depression Compared to Treatment as Usual in Subjects Who Had a First-time Treatment Failure on Their First-line Treatment.

Rationale Bipolar disorders affect approximately 4.5 million people across the European Union (EU) and are associated with high annual healthcare and societal costs. Bipolar disorder I and II represent disorders that cause extreme fluctuation in a person's mood, energy, and ability to function, in which symptoms of (hypo)mania and depression alternate. The depressive episodes of bipolar disorders are often referred to as bipolar depression (BD). In other words: it is a phase/state of the disorder. For many patients with BD, the depressive polarity is often more pervasive and more debilitating than manic states, with estimates that depressed mood accounts for up to two-thirds of the time spent unwell, even with treatment. The burden of not received an effective treatment for BD is high: more severe psychopathology, higher rates of unemployment, more hospitalisations, lower quality of life, lower cognitive functioning, risk of suicide, comorbidities and poorer social and occupational functioning and thus more carer burden. For BD, the treatment guidelines are very heterogeneous, amongst other reasons because the disease is heterogeneous and treatments should be tailored to the patients. There is no clear treatment algorithm and it cannot yet be predicted which treatment will be effective. Especially the place of adjunctive antidepressants is under debate. Usually, for psychiatric disorders (including bipolar disorder), a patient is considered to be treatment-resistant is two medicinal treatments have been tried (in sufficient duration and dosage) without sufficient success. For BD, there is no consensus on when to consider a patient as treatment-resistant, but the most common definition is after one prior treatment failure. This raises the research question whether adjunctive antidepressants to treat BD should be introduced earlier in the treatment. Additionally, The INTENSIFY trial is part of the larger Horizon 2021 project, with the central goal of paving the way for a shift towards a treatment decision-making process tailored for the individual at risk for treatment resistance. To that end, we aim to establish evidence-based criteria to make decisions of early intense treatment in individuals at risk for treatment resistance across the major psychiatric disorders of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression. Objective The primary objective is to compare the treatment response (baseline; visit 2 vs. end of treatment; visit 4), expressed as symptom severity at six weeks and changes in symptom severity from baseline, as measured through the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) under an early-intensified pharmacological treatment to that under treatment as usual, in subjects who had a first-time treatment failure on their first-line treatment. Main trial endpoints Change in symptom severity total score from baseline (visit 2) to end of treatment (visit 4). This is measured using MADRS. Secondary trial endpoints 1. To compare changes in severity and improvement in global functioning assessed by the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) between the two treatment arms. 2. To compare changes in the levels of depression and anxiety between treatment arms. 3. To compare changes in quality of life and functioning measures between treatment arms. 4. To compare changes in cognitive performance between treatment arms. 5. To compare the proportion of participants (EIPT vs. TAU) that is in symptomatic remission at visit 4. 6. To compare presence of side effects between treatment arms. 7. To compare use of concomitant medication between treatment arms. 8. To compare premature discontinuation (timing and reason) between treatment arms. 9. To compare changes in suicidal ideation between treatment arms. 10. To compare occurrence of (hypo)manic episode during the study between the treatment arms. Trial design The clinical study is an international, multicenter controlled, randomised, open label trial (with blinded raters), with a treatment duration of six weeks. Trial population The aim is to recruit 418 subjects with bipolar disorder type I or II, currently in a depressive episode. Male and female subjects, in- and out-patients, with the age of at least 18 old are eligible for participation. The main exclusion criteria are defined to protect the wellbeing of subjects, e.g. being pregnant or breastfeeding, subjects with previous failure on quetiapine, meeting any contraindications, or participants with a known intolerance to quetiapine. Interventions Subjects are randomised to treatment as usual (second-line treatment) or to the early-intensified pharmacological treatment (third-line treatment). Treatment per can be found in the table below: Table 1. Overview of treatment randomisation per study sample. Treatment as Usual (TAU) Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid Early-Intensified Pharmacological Treatment (EIPT) Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine Ethical considerations relating to the clinical trial including the expected benefit to the individual subject or group of subjects represented by the trial subjects as well as the nature and extent of burden and risks All medications studied in the current trial are widely used (alone or in combination) in clinical practice and the risks for side effects are well established. In the current study, clinical practice is mimicked as much as possible to maximize generalisability and for feasibility purposes. To this end, Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) are followed with regards to contraindications (implemented as exclusion criterion), safety measures and allowed combinations with other medications. Site visits and assessments are kept to a minimum to keep subject burden at an acceptable level, while meeting the objectives of the study. Blood samples for biomarker analyses are only collected when subjects provide consent; safety measures are performed as part of clinical routine. Overall, the risks are similar to daily clinical practice; the only difference relative to clinical practice is the application of three pharmacological treatments (EIPT) versus two (TAU) earlier in the illness. Still, these additional treatment options are also commonly prescribed by clinicians. There are no indications in existing literature or clinical practice that the earlier introduction of these medications poses a safety risk when used in an earlier illness phase than indicated in the SmPC. A benefit of the study is that if it indeed turns out that the early-intensified treatment is associated with more symptom improvement compared to treatment as usual, future patients have to go through less trial and error, which results in a reduced burden (higher quality of life, less unemployment, less hospitalisations) for patients and carers as well as lower societal and healthcare costs. IMPORTANT: the study was submitted to the European authorities before (see NCT05603104) and they requested to split this study into 3 studies (1 for each diagnostic category). We have done this and created 3 new ClinicalTrials.gov studies as well, from which this is one for bipolar depression. The ClinicalTrials.gov numbers of the related trials are NCT05958875 for the INTENSIFY SZ trial and NCT05973851 for the INTENSIFY MDD trial. The site in the UK (London) followed the advice and will submit 3 separate protocols and are therefore included in the current record. However, Israel already submitted this as one protocol. Therefore, we keep the old clinicaltrials.gov number for Israel (NCT05603104).

Sertraline Combined With Fluvoxamine in the Treatment of Refractory Obsessive-compulsive Disorder

To verify that sertraline combined with fluvoxamine is superior to sertraline combined with aripiprazole, and to observe the indicators of improving patients' cognitive function and adverse drug reactions, so as to provide evidence-based evidence for supplementing the treatment guidelines for obsessive-compulsive disorder

Neural Markers of Treatment Mechanisms and Prediction of Treatment Outcomes in Social Anxiety

The primary aim of this study is to discover neural mechanisms (via EEG and MRI) associated with variation in response to CBT and/or combined CBT and SSRI interventions. The goal is to develop a rigorous model that predicts individual differences in response to treatments using baseline neural markers. The investigators will recruit 190 adults with social anxiety disorder (SAD) and 50 adult controls. All adults with SAD will participate in group CBT for SAD. Non-responders will continue on with individual CBT plus the addition of sertraline for another 12 weeks. 50 controls will receive baseline EEG and MRI but will not participate in any clinical interventions. The investigators will also perform neuroimaging (task fMRI, rsfMRI, DWI, structural MRI) and collect EEG before treatment, to compare patient and control groups, and to obtain neuromarkers that predict treatment response. MRI/EEG Tasks Activation of Negative Valence System. The RDoC recommends "viewing aversive pictures" as a means to activate the Negative Valence System. The investigators will adapt the paradigm that accounted for 40% of CBT outcome variance in which participants viewed blocks of angry or neutral faces. The investigators chose to use a block (rather than an event-related) design because block designs have stronger measurement power for characterizing individuals. Experimental design. Stimuli will be color faces from the NimStim set with angry or neutral expressions. There will be six 15-second blocks per condition, with six faces per block; each face is presented for 1250 ms, followed by 1250 ms of fixation. The task starts and ends with a fixation block, and each pair of face blocks is separated by one fixation block. Two fixed forms are used to counterbalance condition orders. Participants perform a 1-back task by indicating, via button press, the repetition of a face. Activation of Positive Valence System. As reviewed in Significance, there is evidence that the reward system is atypical in SAD. To investigate this further, the investigators will adapt a widely used reward processing task that was developed by Delgado and that is recommended by the RDoC for probing the initial response to reward. Experimental design. Participants play a guessing game to try to win money. Each trial begins with presentation of a "mystery card" displaying a "?" (duration: 1.5s). Participants are told that card numbers range from 1 to 9, and they indicate whether they think the mystery card number on a given trial is more or less than 5 by pressing a button. Feedback (1s) is given immediately after and consists of either (a) a reward (a green up arrow and "$1"), (b) a loss (red down arrow with "-$0.50"), or (c) a neutral outcome (the number 5 and a grey double-headed arrow). A 1 s intertrial interval (ITI) separates the trials. Participants complete two runs, each of which includes four blocks of eight trials: two blocks yield mostly rewards (6/8 trials), and two blocks yield mostly losses (6/8 trials). There are also four 15 s fixations, to facilitate deconvolution of fMRI responses. Activation of Cognitive Control System. Based on encouraging prior findings, the investigators have included a cognitive control task in which pretreatment activation of dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) predicted response to CBT+SSRI in SAD with 83% accuracy. Experimental design. The task is known as the MSIT. It has four blocks each of two conditions (control and interference). Each block lasts 42 s and consists of 24 trials (1750 ms per trial) in pseudo-randomized order with sets of 3 digits (0, 1, 2, or 3) centrally displayed. One "target" digit differs from the other two (distractors). In the control condition, the distractors are always '0' and the target digit corresponds to its position (i.e., '1' in the leftmost position; '2' in the middle position; and '3' in the rightmost position). Thus, on control trials, the target digit and position are congruent. In the interference condition, the distractors are '1', '2', or '3' and the target digit and position are incongruent (e.g., '1' presented in the rightmost position). Participants indicate if the target digit is '1', '2', or '3' by pressing the response buttons. Ignoring the distractors and the misleading position of the target digit on interference trials requires cognitive control. Our primary hypotheses are that: (1) The investigators will identify patterns of brain activity that distinguish adults with SAD from adults in the comparison group, and that (2) The investigators will be able to identify patterns of brain activity that predict which adults with SAD will (or will not) respond to treatment. The primary outcome measure will be treatment response (defined elsewhere in this registration).

Effect of Exercise on Tapering Antipsychotics in Patients With Psycho-cardiological Disease(EXTRA-study)

Comparison of Vortioxetine Versus Other Antidepressants With Pregabalin Augmentation in Burning Mouth Syndrome

Intensified Pharmacological Treatment for Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Depression After a First-time Treatment Failure

Rationale Schizophrenia (SZ), bipolar depression (BD) and major depressive disorders (MDD) collectively affect over 10 million people across the European Union (EU) and are associated with annual healthcare and societal costs in excess of 100 billion Euros. When diagnosed with one of these disorders, patients are prescribed psychotropic medication such as antidepressants, mood stabilisers and/or antipsychotics. The effectiveness of these treatments for individual patients cannot be predicted. After this first-line treatment fails, usually a second-line treatment is initiated; when this is not effective either, a third-line treatment is initiated. Third-line treatments are quite effective, for people not responding to the first two treatments lines. However, clear evidence from direct comparisons of treatment algorithms is lacking. The research question is whether the third-line treatments would be more efficacious than the current second-line treatments (treatment as usual) for schizophrenia, bipolar and major depressive disorders. Third-line treatment can then be regarded as 'early-intensified'. If this is indeed the case, this could lead to the prevention of unnecessary trials of ineffective treatments and recommendations for adaptations of worldwide guidelines as well as a reduction of healthcare and societal costs. Additionally, The INTENSIFY trial is part of the larger Horizon 2021 project, with the central goal of paving the way for a shift towards a treatment decision-making process tailored for the individual at risk for treatment resistance. To that end, we aim to establish evidence-based criteria to make decisions of early intense treatment in individuals at risk for treatment resistance across the major psychiatric disorders of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression. Objective The primary objective is to compare the treatment response, expressed as change in symptom severity as measured through the Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS; SZ sample), and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; MDD/BD samples) under an early-intensified pharmacological treatment to that under treatment as usual, in subjects who had a first-time treatment failure on their first-line treatment. Main trial endpoints Change in symptom severity total score from baseline (visit 2) to end of treatment (visit 4). For SZ, this is measured using PANSS. For MDD and BD, MADRS is applied. Secondary trial endpoints 1. All study samples: to compare changes in the severity and improvement sub-scores of the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) between the two treatment arms over the six week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 2. All study samples: to compare changes in the levels of depression and anxiety as assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) between the two treatment arms over the six week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 3. All study samples: to compare changes in cognitive performance as measured through the Trail Making Test, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test as well as the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire between the two treatment arms over the six week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 4. All study samples: to compare changes in quality of life and functioning measures (Q-LES-Q-SF, LAPS, QLS-100 and SDS between the two treatment arms over the six week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 5. All study samples: to compare presence of side effects as measured through General Assessment of Side Effects Scale (GASE) and reported spontaneously between the two treatment arms over the six week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 6. All study samples: to compare use of concomitant medication between the two treatment arms over the six week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 7. All study samples: to compare premature discontinuation (timing and reason)between the two treatment arms over the six week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 8. All study samples: comparison of the proportion of participants (EIPT vs. TAU) that is remission at visit 4. For SZ, remission is defined as meeting the PANSS modified Andreasen criteria (Low scores (≤3) P1. Delusions; P3. Hallucinatory behavior; P2. Conceptual disorganization; N1. Blunted affect; N4. Passive/apathetic social withdrawal; N6. Lack of spontaneity and flow of conversation; G5. Mannerisms/posturing; G9. Unusual thought content. For MDD/BD, remission is defined as a MADRS score ≤ 12 9. To compare changes in suicidal ideation between treatment arms. 10. SZ sample: to compare changes in PANSS subscale scores between the two treatment arms over the six-week treatment period (visit 2 versus visit 4). 11. BD study sample: To compare occurrence of (hypo)manic episode during the study between the treatment arms Trial design The clinical study is an international, multicenter controlled, randomised, open label trial, with a treatment duration of 4-6 weeks. Trial population The aim is to recruit 418 subjects into each of the study samples, leading to a total sample size of 1254 subjects. The study samples are: schizophrenia (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder), major depressive disorder and bipolar depressive disorder (bipolar I or II disorder currently in a depressive episode). Male and female subjects, in- and out-patients, within the age of at least 18 years old are eligible for participation. The main exclusion criteria to protect the subjects are subjects being pregnant or breastfeeding, subjects with previous failure on the early-intensified pharmacological treatments, known intolerance to any of the treatments or meeting any contraindications for the early-intensified pharmacological treatments. Interventions Per study sample (SZ, MDD, BD), subjects are randomised to treatment as usual (second-line treatment) or to the early-intensified pharmacological treatment (third-line treatment). Treatment per group per study sample can be found below: SZ sample: Treatment as Usual (TAU): Switch to second line antipsychotic Early-Intensified Pharmacological Treatment (EIPT): Switch to clozapine MDD sample: Treatment as Usual (TAU): Switch to second-line antidepressant Early-Intensified Pharmacological Treatment (EIPT): Oral antidepressant plus esketamine nasal spray or esketamine IV or ketamine IV BD sample: Treatment as Usual (TAU): Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid Early-Intensified Pharmacological Treatment (EIPT): Switch to: 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine Ethical considerations relating to the clinical trial including the expected benefit to the individual subject or group of subjects represented by the trial subjects as well as the nature and extent of burden and risks All medications studied in the current trial are widely used (alone or in combination) in clinical practice and the risks for side effects are well established. In the current study, clinical practice is mimicked as much as possible to maximize generalizability and for feasibility purposes. To this end, Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) are followed with regards to contraindications (implemented as exclusion criterion), safety measures and allowed combinations with other medications. Site visits and assessments are kept to a minimum to keep subject burden at an acceptable level, while meeting the objectives of the study. Blood samples are only collected when subjects provide consent; safety measures are performed as part of clinical routine. Overall, the risks are similar to daily clinical practice; the only difference relative to clinical practice is the application of early-intensified pharmacological treatment earlier in the illness. However, these intense treatment options are also commonly prescribed by clinicians. There are no indications in existing literature that the earlier introduction of these medications poses a safety risk. A benefit of the study is that if it indeed turns out that the early-intensified pharmacological treatment is associated with more symptom improvement compared to treatment as usual, treatment guidelines may be changed accordingly and early-intensified pharmacological treatment becomes available earlier in the illness course, as second-line treatment. This would mean that future subjects have to go through less trial and error, which results in a reduced burden for subjects as well as lower societal and healthcare costs. IMPORTANT: the study was submitted to the European suthorities and they requested to split this study into 3 studies (1 for each diagnostic category). We have done this and created 3 new ClinicalTrials.gov studies as well. The numbers are NCT05958875 (SZ substudy), NCT05973786 (BD substudy) and NCT05973851 (MDD substudy). The site in the UK (London) followed the advice and will submit 3 separate protocols. However, Israel already submitted this as one protocol. Therefore, we keep this clinicaltrials.gov number for Israel.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Commonly Used Drugs in Lactating Women and Breastfed Infants

The purpose of this study is to understand if the study drugs of interest are found in breastmilk and how much; to estimate the amount of drug that is consumed by breastfed infants and what effect this may have on infants; and to share what we learn with other researchers. The study drugs of interest have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, but there is little or no information about the amount of drug found in the breastmilk of mothers who take them; the amount of drug that may be transferred to their infant's through breastmilk; or the effects this transfer may have on their infants. During this study we will ask to collect breastmilk and blood from mothers, and blood from infants, to measure the amount of study drug of interest in these body fluids. Results from this study will help researchers better understand how much of the study drug of interest is in your blood and breastmilk, and how much of the study drug of interest may be in your infant's blood because of breastfeeding.