Rheumatoid ArthritisPhase 4NCT00385528
Effects of a Multi-Faceted Psychiatric Intervention Targeted at the Complex Medically Ill: a Randomized Controlled Trial
A Phase 4 study testing Multi-faceted psychiatric intervention in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Diabetes, run by University of Lausanne Hospitals at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
Background: somatic patients with psychiatric co-morbidities are a major challenge for the health care system. This study evaluated a psychiatric intervention targeted at the complex medically ill identified by means of the INTERMED, an instrument to assess case complexity. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 19 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Rheumatoid Arthritis, Diabetes
- What is being tested?
- Multi-faceted psychiatric intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 200 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- Nov 2002to Apr 2006
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 19 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- PAtients between 19-65 years old,
- inpatient rheumatology patients and diabetes outpatients,
- case complexity above 21 on the INTERMED
Who cannot join
- cognitive failure,
- not french speaking,
- terminal illness
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Switzerland1 site
University Hospital Lausanne
Lausanne, Canton of Vaud, 1011
About this study
Background: somatic patients with psychiatric co-morbidities are a major challenge for the health care system. This study evaluated a psychiatric intervention targeted at the complex medically ill identified by means of the INTERMED, an instrument to assess case complexity.
Methods: of 885 rheumatology inpatients and diabetes outpatients who were assessed for eligibility, 247 were identified as complex (INTERMED score > 20) and randomized to the intervention (N=125, 84 rheumatology and 41 diabetes patients) or care as usual (N=122, 78 rheumatology and 44 diabetes patients). Intervention consisted of counseling by a psychiatric nurse, referral to a liaison psychiatrist, or a multidisciplinary case conference. Baseline and follow up at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 measured prevalence of major depression (MINI), depressive symptoms (CES-D), physical and mental health (SF-36), quality of life (EuroQol), hospitalizations (rheumatology patients) and HbA1c levels (diabetic patients).
Read the detailed description
Of the 885 that assessed for eligibility (see Figure 2), 184 (20.8%) met exclusion criteria, such as not speaking French (N=43), severe cognitive disturbances (N=27) or hospitalization for less than 3 days (N=28); 6.2% refused to participate (N=55). Of the remaining patients (N= 701), 64.8% (N=454) did not qualify as complex patients (INTERMED score < 20). The remaining 247 patients were randomized, 125 (84 rheumatology inpatients and 41 diabetes outpatients) to the intervention and 122 to care as usual (78 rheumatology inpatients and 44 diabetes outpatients). With regard to sociodemographics and baseline measurements (including the above mentioned strata of the rheumatology patients and the different types of diabetes), intervention and care as usual group did not differ at baseline (see Table 1). More than half of the sample (61% of the intervention group and 56% of the care as usual group) suffered from major depression.
In the intervention arm, most patients (N = 107) received an intervention conducted by the psychiatric liaison nurse; the interventions, effectuated as single interventions or combined, consisted of "facilitating emotional expression" (73%), "giving practical advice" (71%), "promoting life narrative" (48%) and "providing psycho-educational interventions" (44%). For about half of the patients in the intervention group (N = 76) also other types of interventions were proposed, such as referral to a liaison psychiatrist (N = 36), psychiatric advice to the treating physician (N = 32) or interdisciplinary case conferences (N = 8). A minority of patients (N=13) did not receive any treatment (due to no indication for a psycho-social intervention or patients lacking motivation) (N=13). The liaison nurses, who effectuated the intervention and organized psychiatric referral, psychiatric advice to the treating physician and interdisciplinary case conferences, were supervised weekly for an hour by a senior psychiatrist (FS) or an experienced psychiatric liaison nurse (YD).
Between 62% and 70% of the patients of the intervention arm and between 57% to 69% of patients of the usual care arm provided complete follow up data at the four time points (see Figure 2). Patients with missing data did not differ from patients with complete data with regard to age, sex, educational and professional status, baseline quality of life and depression on each of the four follow up assessments.
Effects of intervention
In Table 2 and Figures 3-7, comparisons between patients in the intervention arm on and usual care arm on the main outcomes are presented. Overall, the intervention was associated with less depression and higher levels of quality of life during follow up. Using statistical tests to evaluate differences at each of the separate follow up points, statistically significant differences are observed with regard to the prevalence of major depression at 12 months, physical health at 3 months and quality of life at 3, 6, and 12 months (see Table 2).
- Conditions
- Rheumatoid Arthritis, Diabetes
- Being tested
- Multi-faceted psychiatric intervention
- Keywords
- Case complexity, INTERMED, Consultation liaison psychiatry, depression
- Medical subject headings
- Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Diabetes Mellitus, Depression
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Multi-faceted psychiatric interventionBehavioural
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Psychological distress, quality of life
Secondary outcomes (1)
health care utilization
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Oct 2006 (estimated)
- Study startNov 2002
- Study completionApr 2006
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Rheumatoid ArthritisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Enrolment
- 200 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Lausanne Hospitals
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Friedrich C Stiefel, MD, Principal investigator, University of Lausanne Hospitals
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00385528
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- OCS-3200-066718
- Status last verified
- Oct 2006
- First submitted
- 6 Oct 2006
- Last updated
- 17 Oct 2008
- Results posted
- No
Publications
de Jonge P, Huyse FJ, Slaets JP, Sollner W, Stiefel FC. Operationalization of biopsychosocial case complexity in general health care: the INTERMED project. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005 Sep;39(9):795-9. doi: 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01684.x.
PubMed 16168037
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Oct 2008. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of a Multi-Faceted Psychiatric Intervention Targeted at the Complex Medically Ill: a Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00385528
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- OCS-3200-066718
- Conditions
- Rheumatoid Arthritis, Diabetes
- Keywords
- Case complexity, INTERMED, Consultation liaison psychiatry, depression
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 200 participants
- Lead sponsor
- University of Lausanne HospitalsUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Nov 2002
- Study completion
- Apr 2006
- First posted
- 9 Oct 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Background: somatic patients with psychiatric co-morbidities are a major challenge for the health care system. This study evaluated a psychiatric intervention targeted at the complex medically ill identified by means of the INTERMED, an instrument to assess case complexity.
Methods: of 885 rheumatology inpatients and diabetes outpatients who were assessed for eligibility, 247 were identified as complex (INTERMED score > 20) and randomized to the intervention (N=125, 84 rheumatology and 41 diabetes patients) or care as usual (N=122, 78 rheumatology and 44 diabetes patients). Intervention consisted of counseling by a psychiatric nurse, referral to a liaison psychiatrist, or a multidisciplinary case conference. Baseline and follow up at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 measured prevalence of major depression (MINI), depressive symptoms (CES-D), physical and mental health (SF-36), quality of life (EuroQol), hospitalizations (rheumatology patients) and HbA1c levels (diabetic patients).
Detailed description
Of the 885 that assessed for eligibility (see Figure 2), 184 (20.8%) met exclusion criteria, such as not speaking French (N=43), severe cognitive disturbances (N=27) or hospitalization for less than 3 days (N=28); 6.2% refused to participate (N=55). Of the remaining patients (N= 701), 64.8% (N=454) did not qualify as complex patients (INTERMED score < 20). The remaining 247 patients were randomized, 125 (84 rheumatology inpatients and 41 diabetes outpatients) to the intervention and 122 to care as usual (78 rheumatology inpatients and 44 diabetes outpatients). With regard to sociodemographics and baseline measurements (including the above mentioned strata of the rheumatology patients and the different types of diabetes), intervention and care as usual group did not differ at baseline (see Table 1). More than half of the sample (61% of the intervention group and 56% of the care as usual group) suffered from major depression.
In the intervention arm, most patients (N = 107) received an intervention conducted by the psychiatric liaison nurse; the interventions, effectuated as single interventions or combined, consisted of "facilitating emotional expression" (73%), "giving practical advice" (71%), "promoting life narrative" (48%) and "providing psycho-educational interventions" (44%). For about half of the patients in the intervention group (N = 76) also other types of interventions were proposed, such as referral to a liaison psychiatrist (N = 36), psychiatric advice to the treating physician (N = 32) or interdisciplinary case conferences (N = 8). A minority of patients (N=13) did not receive any treatment (due to no indication for a psycho-social intervention or patients lacking motivation) (N=13). The liaison nurses, who effectuated the intervention and organized psychiatric referral, psychiatric advice to the treating physician and interdisciplinary case conferences, were supervised weekly for an hour by a senior psychiatrist (FS) or an experienced psychiatric liaison nurse (YD).
Between 62% and 70% of the patients of the intervention arm and between 57% to 69% of patients of the usual care arm provided complete follow up data at the four time points (see Figure 2). Patients with missing data did not differ from patients with complete data with regard to age, sex, educational and professional status, baseline quality of life and depression on each of the four follow up assessments.
Effects of intervention
In Table 2 and Figures 3-7, comparisons between patients in the intervention arm on and usual care arm on the main outcomes are presented. Overall, the intervention was associated with less depression and higher levels of quality of life during follow up. Using statistical tests to evaluate differences at each of the separate follow up points, statistically significant differences are observed with regard to the prevalence of major depression at 12 months, physical health at 3 months and quality of life at 3, 6, and 12 months (see Table 2).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 19 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- PAtients between 19-65 years old,
- inpatient rheumatology patients and diabetes outpatients,
- case complexity above 21 on the INTERMED
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- cognitive failure,
- not french speaking,
- terminal illness
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-faceted psychiatric intervention | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
Psychological distress, quality of life
1 secondary outcome
health care utilization
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Oct 2008.
- Results publication: PubMed 16168037de Jonge P, Huyse FJ, Slaets JP, Sollner W, Stiefel FC. Operationalization of biopsychosocial case complexity in general health care: the INTERMED project. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005 Sep;39(9):795-9. doi: 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01684.x.
Related trials for Rheumatoid Arthritis
RecruitingPhase 2
Study of PTC844 in Participants With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
An Ascending Dose Study of DKB903 in Participants With Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Participants With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)
Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
R-2487 in Patients With Sjogren's Syndrome (SjD)
Sjogren's Syndrome, Sjögren
RecruitingPhase 1
A Trial in Healthy Adult Participants and Adults With Autoimmune Diseases to Test How HBM7020 is Tolerated and How it Behaves in the Body
Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
A Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Inhaled AP01 in Participants With Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis
Pulmonary Fibrosis, Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Friedrich C Stiefel, MD principal investigator
University of Lausanne Hospitals
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Multi-faceted psychiatric intervention in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Diabetes, run by University of Lausanne Hospitals at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Oct 2008. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Psychological distress, quality of life. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00385528, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Oct 2008.