Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Feb;9(1):94-101.
doi: 10.1177/1740774511427324. Epub 2011 Nov 10.

Methods to limit attrition in longitudinal comparative effectiveness trials: lessons from the Lithium Treatment - Moderate dose Use Study (LiTMUS) for bipolar disorder

Louisa G Sylvia  1 , Noreen A Reilly-Harrington, Andrew C Leon, Christine I Kansky, Terence A Ketter, Joseph R Calabrese, Michael E Thase, Charles L Bowden, Edward S Friedman, Michael J Ostacher, Dan V Iosifescu, Joanne Severe, Michelle Keyes, Andrew A Nierenberg
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Methods to limit attrition in longitudinal comparative effectiveness trials: lessons from the Lithium Treatment - Moderate dose Use Study (LiTMUS) for bipolar disorder

Louisa G Sylvia et al. Clin Trials. 2012 Feb.

Abstract

Background: High attrition rates, which occur frequently in longitudinal clinical trials of interventions for bipolar disorder, limit the interpretation of results.

Purpose: The aim of this article is to present design approaches that limited attrition in the Lithium Treatment - Moderate dose Use Study (LiTMUS) for bipolar disorder.

Methods: LiTMUS was a 6-month randomized, longitudinal multisite comparative effectiveness trial that enrolled bipolar participants who were at least mildly ill. Participants were randomized to either low to moderate doses of lithium or no lithium; other treatments needed for mood stabilization were administered in a guideline-informed, empirically supported, and personalized fashion to participants in both treatment arms.

Results: Components of the study design that may have contributed to low attrition (16%) among 283 participants randomized included the use of (1) an intent-to-treat design, (2) a randomized adjunctive single-blind design, (3) participant reimbursement, (4) assessment of intent to attend the next study visit (included a discussion of attendance obstacles when intention was low), (5) quality care with limited participant burden, and (6) target windows for study visits.

Limitations: The relationships between attrition and effectiveness and tolerability of treatment have not been analyzed yet.

Conclusions: These components of the LiTMUS design may have limited attrition and may inform the design of future randomized comparative effectiveness trials among similar patients and those from other difficult-to-follow populations.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00667745.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
LiTMUS Cumulative Attrition Rates (%) by Month Note. Duration of Study is the time from when the first subject was randomized in LiTMUS to the completion of the follow-up phase for the last randomized subject.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Thase ME. How should efficacy be evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatments for depression? J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60(Suppl 4):23–31. - PubMed
    1. Leon AC, Davis LL. Enhancing clinical trial design of interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Traumatic Stress. 2009;22:603–11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Leon AC, Mallinckrodt CH, Chuang-Stein C, Archibald DG, Archer GE, Chartier K. Attrition in randomized controlled clinical trials: Methodological issues in psychopharmacology. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59:1001–5. - PubMed
    1. Smith LA, Cornelius V, Warnock A, Tacchi MJ, Taylor D. Pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: A systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Bipolar Disord. 2007;9:551–60. - PubMed
    1. Maarbjerg K, Aagaard J, Vestergaard P. Adherence to Lithium Prophylaxis: I. Clinical Predictors and Patient’s Reasons for Nonadherence. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1988;21:121–5. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Associated data