Cognitive Remediation Works But How Should We Provide It? An Adaptive Randomized Controlled Trial of Delivery Methods Using a Patient Nominated Recovery Outcome in First-Episode Participants.

Abstract

Cognitive remediation (CR) benefits cognition and functioning in psychosis but we do not know the optimal level of therapist contact, so we evaluated the potential benefits of different CR modes. A multi-arm, multi-center, single-blinded, adaptive trial of therapist-supported CR. Participants from 11 NHS early intervention psychosis services were independently randomized to Independent, Group, One-to-One, or Treatment-as-usual (TAU). The primary outcome was functional recovery (Goal Attainment Scale [GAS]) at 15-weeks post randomization. Independent and TAU arms were closed after an interim analysis, and three informative contrasts tested (Group vs One-to-One, Independent vs TAU, Group + One-to-One vs TAU). Health economic analyses considered the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). All analyses used intention-to-treat principles. We analyzed 377 participants (65 Independent, 134 Group, 112 One-to-One, 66 TAU). GAS did not differ for Group vs One-to-One: Cohen's d: 0.07, -0.25 to 0.40 95% CI, P = .655; Independent vs TAU: Cohen's d: 0.07, -0.41 to 0.55 95% CI, P = .777. GAS and the cognitive score improved for Group + One-to-One vs TAU favoring CR (GAS: Cohen's d: 0.57, 0.19-0.96 95% CI, P = .003; Cognitive score: Cohens d: 0.28, 0.07-0.48 95% CI, P = .008). The QALY costs were £4306 for Group vs TAU and £3170 for One-to-One vs TAU. Adverse events did not differ between treatment methods and no serious adverse events were related to treatment. Both active therapist methods provided cost-effective treatment benefiting functional recovery in early psychosis and should be adopted within services. Some individuals benefited more than others so needs further investigation. ISRCTN14678860 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14678860Now closed.