Clinical Trials

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frank, E.
Right arrow Articles by Forgione, R. N.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frank, E.
Right arrow Articles by Forgione, R. N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Trials, Vol. 5, No. 3, 253-261 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774508091965

Addressing the challenges of a cross-national investigation: lessons from the Pittsburgh-Pisa study of treatment-relevant phenotypes of unipolar depression

Ellen Frank

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, franke{at}upmc.edu

Giovanni B Cassano

Department of Psychiatry, Neurobiology, Pharmacology, Biotechnology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Paola Rucci

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Andrea Fagiolini

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Luca Maggi

Department of Psychiatry, Neurobiology, Pharmacology, Biotechnology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Helena C Kraemer

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA

David J Kupfer

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Bruce Pollock

Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Robert Bies

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Vishwajit Nimgaonkar

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Paul Pilkonis

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

M Katherine Shear

School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Wesley K Thompson

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Victoria J Grochocinski

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Paolo Scocco

Department of Mental Health, Padua, Italy

Joan Buttenfield

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Rocco Nicola Forgione

Department of Psychiatry, Neurobiology, Pharmacology, Biotechnology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Background: To date, no cross-national RCT has addressed the mechanisms underlying the relative success of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions for depression. A multi-site clinical trial that includes psychotherapy as one of the treatments presents numerous challenges related to cross-site consistency and communication.

Purpose: This report describes how those challenges were met in the study ``Depression: The Search for Treatment Relevant Phenotypes'', being carried out at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pisa, Italy.

Methods: Implementing the study required the investigators to address methodological and practical challenges related to the different requirements of the two Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), psychotherapy training, independent evaluator training, patient recruitment, development of common tools for data entry, quality control and generation of weekly reports of patient progress as well as establishing a similar clinical and research framework in two countries with substantially different health care systems.

Results: By having bilingual investigators and staff members who spent time at one another's sites, making use of frequent conference-call staff meetings and being flexible within the bounds of the sometimes contradictory requirements of the IRBs, the investigators were able to meet the human subjects protection requirements of both institutions, surmount language barriers to consistent therapist and evaluator training and develop common tools for study management. As a result, recruitment goals were met at both sites and retention rates were high. One instance of inconsistent implementation of the protocol was corrected within the first year.

Limitations: This study was conducted in two Western cultures by researchers with long-standing collaboration. Our findings may not be generalizable to other countries or research settings.

Conclusions: The implementation of a cross-national protocol and the adoption and maintenance of common procedures is possible when investigators are aware of the challenges this may present and are proactive in trying to address them. Clinical Trials 2008; 5: 253—261. http://ctj.sagepub.com


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?