跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT05973786
NCT05973786招募中3 期

A Randomised, Controlled Trial to Investigate 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.

Dr. Inge Winter13 个研究点 分布在 6 个国家目标入组 418 人开始时间: 2025年2月11日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施
相关药物

试验速览

阶段
3 期
状态
招募中
发起方
入组人数
418
试验地点
13
主要终点
Comparing the change in symptom severity on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale

研究概览

简要总结

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.

详细描述

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.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
Single (Outcomes Assessor)

盲法说明

Open label, except for the assessors of the primary outcome

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • 未提供

排除标准

  • 未提供

研究组 & 干预措施

Bipolar Depression EIPT: Switch to one of the following combinations:

Experimental

Bipolar Depression randomized to EIPT: Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine

干预措施: Escitalopram (Drug)

Bipolar Depression EIPT: Switch to one of the following combinations:

Experimental

Bipolar Depression randomized to EIPT: Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine

干预措施: Sertraline (Drug)

Bipolar Depression EIPT: Switch to one of the following combinations:

Experimental

Bipolar Depression randomized to EIPT: Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine

干预措施: Venlafaxine (Drug)

Bipolar Depression EIPT: Switch to one of the following combinations:

Experimental

Bipolar Depression randomized to EIPT: Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine

干预措施: Lithium (Drug)

Bipolar Depression EIPT: Switch to one of the following combinations:

Experimental

Bipolar Depression randomized to EIPT: Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine

干预措施: Valproate acid (Drug)

Bipolar Depression EIPT: Switch to one of the following combinations:

Experimental

Bipolar Depression randomized to EIPT: Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine

干预措施: Quetiapine (Drug)

Bipolar Depression EIPT: Switch to one of the following combinations:

Experimental

Bipolar Depression randomized to EIPT: Switch to 1. one of the following: escitalopram, sertraline, bupropion or venlafaxine plus 2. two of the following: lithium, valproate acid or quetiapine

干预措施: Bupropion (Drug)

Bipolar Depression TAU: Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid

Active Comparator

Bipolar Depression randomized to TAU: Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid Compound, brand, dosage, frequency and duration up to the investigator's discretion (in accordance with SmPC).

干预措施: Lithium (Drug)

Bipolar Depression TAU: Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid

Active Comparator

Bipolar Depression randomized to TAU: Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid Compound, brand, dosage, frequency and duration up to the investigator's discretion (in accordance with SmPC).

干预措施: Valproate acid (Drug)

Bipolar Depression TAU: Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid

Active Comparator

Bipolar Depression randomized to TAU: Switch to quetiapine plus lithium or valproate acid Compound, brand, dosage, frequency and duration up to the investigator's discretion (in accordance with SmPC).

干预措施: Quetiapine (Drug)

结局指标

主要结局

Comparing the change in symptom severity on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale

时间窗: 6 weeks

Mean in symptom severity (EIPT vs. TAU) total score from baseline (visit 2) to end of treatment (visit 4). This is measured using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale.Minimum score is 0, maximum score is 60. A bigger mean change means a better outcome

次要结局

  • Compare proportion of participants that is in symptomatic remission(6 weeks)
  • Compare the change in the severity and improvement CGI-S sub-scores(6 weeks)
  • Compare the change in the severity and improvement CGI-I sub-scores(6 weeks)
  • Compare the changes in the levels of depression and anxiety(6 weeks)
  • To compare changes in cognitive performance as measured through the Trail Making Test(6 weeks)
  • To compare the changes in cognitive performance as measured through the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test(6 weeks)
  • To compare the changes in subjective cognitive performance as measured through the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire(6 weeks)
  • To compare the changes in functioning on the Leuven Affective and Pleasure Scale(6 weeks)
  • To compare the changes in functioning on the Sheehan Disability Scale(6 weeks)
  • To compare the changes in quality of life measure, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form(6 weeks)
  • To compare the changes in quality of life measure, Quality of Life Scale -100, subscale inner tension(6 weeks)
  • To compare the reason of participants that prematurely discontinue the study treatment between the two treatment arms.(6 weeks)
  • To compare the frequency of occurence of side effects between the two treatment arms.(6 weeks)
  • To compare the proportion of participants using concomitant medication between the two treatment arms.(6 weeks)
  • To compare the proportion of participants who prematurely discontinue between the two treatment arms.(6 weeks)
  • To compare changes in suicidal ideation between treatment arms.(6 weeks.)
  • To compare occurrence of (hypo)manic episode during the study between the treatment arms(6 weeks.)

研究者

发起方
Dr. Inge Winter
申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor Investigator
主要研究者

Dr. Inge Winter

Principal Investigator

UMC Utrecht

研究点 (13)

Loading locations...

相似试验