The major goal of this 4-site, double blind, placebo-controlled intervention trial is to assess the efficacy of medication (Citalopram) alone or with psychotherapy (Complicated Grief Therapy) to treat the symptoms of complicated grief.
Complicated grief (CG) is a debilitating condition that is estimated to affect millions of people in the United States alone. We conducted the first randomized controlled study to address this condition (MH60783) and confirmed efficacy of a targeted psychotherapy, complicated grief treatment (CGT). Participants in our prior study continued stable antidepressant medication while receiving CGT or Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT). Individuals taking antidepressants had better outcome in both treatments, though CGT was superior to IPT when administered with (60% responders v. 40%) or without (42% v.19%) antidepressants. Studies of antidepressant medication alone have shown mixed results with SSRIs appearing to be promising. However, there has been no randomized controlled study of SSRIs for CG. Determining the efficacy of SSRI treatment for CG, when administered with and without CGT, is of great public health importance. We assembled 4 groups of investigators with strong track records in bereavement research and extensive experience with intervention studies and multicenter projects, to conduct a study of citalopram (CIT) efficacy. We plan to enroll participants with a primary diagnosis of Complicated Grief and randomly assign them (n=480; 50 at Columbia) to receive treatment with CIT, Placebo (PBO), CIT + CGT or PBO + CGT over a period of approximately 16 weeks. We want to determine whether citalopram shows a better response than placebo, when administered either with or without CGT. We will also address the question of whether CIT performs as well when administered alone as it does when administered with CGT.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Enrollment
395
16 weeks of medication provided flexibly up to 40 mg/day. Medication will be administered in a double-blind fashion.
Complicated Grief Treatment (CGT) is a targeted psychotherapy for complicated grief. The treatment integrates principles, strategies and techniques from interpersonal psychotherapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral treatment and motivational interviewing. Treatment includes 16 sessions provided within 20 weeks.
16 weeks of daily inactive medication. It will be administered in a double-blind fashion.
VASDHS / University of California San Diego
San Diego, California, United States
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
New York State Psychiatric Institute
New York, New York, United States
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Responder Status Based on Complicated Grief Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) Scale
Brief rating scale frequently used in clinical trials. For this study, version modified for complicated grief was be used. Response is defined as a score of 1(very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the scale. The rating was done by an Independent Evaluator.
Time frame: Weeks 12 and 20
Change From Baseline in Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG)
The 19-item self-report instrument assesses symptoms of complicated grief. Responses on individual items are added up to a total score, which can range from 0 to 76 with higher scores indicating more intense symptoms. This scale has been utilized previously in treatment studies of CG. Additional times points include weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 40. For the pre-specified analyses we compared change in the ICG total score from baseline (calculated as baseline score minus week 12 score) for CIT vs PLA at week 12 (aim 1), based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.
Time frame: Baseline and week 12
Change From Baseline in Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG)
The 19-item self-report instrument assesses symptoms of complicated grief. Responses on individual items are added up to a total score, which can range from 0 to 76 with higher scores indicating more intense symptoms. This scale has been utilized previously in treatment studies of CG. Additional times points include weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 40. For the pre-specified analyses we compared change in the ICG total score from baseline (calculated as baseline score minus week 20 score) for CIT with CGT vs PLA with CGT (aim 2), and for CIT with CGT vs CIT (aim 3) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.
Time frame: Baseline and week 20
Change From Baseline in Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS)
The WSAS is a modification of a scale introduced by Hafner and Marks (1976), consisting of 0-8 point ratings of the extent to which symptoms interfere with five areas of daily functioning: work, home management, private leisure, social leisure, and family relationships. It is a well-validated, widely used self-report measure. Additional time points include weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 40. A total score calculated as a sum of all items (possible range 0-40) was used in the analyses with higher scores indicating more impairment. For the pre-specified analyses we compared change in the WSAS total score from baseline (calculated as baseline score minus week 12 score) for CIT vs PLA at week 12 (aim 1), based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Baseline and week 12
Change From Baseline in Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS)
The WSAS is a modification of a scale introduced by Hafner and Marks (1976), consisting of 0-8 point ratings of the extent to which symptoms interfere with five areas of daily functioning: work, home management, private leisure, social leisure, and family relationships. It is a well-validated, widely used self-report measure. Additional time points include weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 40. A total score calculated as a sum of all items (possible range 0-40) was used in the analyses with higher scores indicating more impairment. For the pre-specified analyses we compared change in the WSAS total score from baseline (calculated as baseline score minus week 20 score) for CIT with CGT vs PLA with CGT (aim 2), and for CIT with CGT vs CIT (aim 3) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.
Time frame: Baseline and week 20