No abstract

No abstract

Background Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders treated in primary care, yet current therapies have limited efficacy and substantial side effects. Purpose To evaluate long-term chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) use for prevention of GAD symptom relapse. Methods Outpatients from primary care practices and local communities with a primary diagnosis of moderate-to-severe GAD were enrolled for this two-phase study at a large US academic medical center. During Phase 1, eligible participants received 12 weeks of open-label therapy with chamomile pharmaceutical grade extract 1500 mg (500-mg capsule 3 times daily). During Phase 2, treatment responders were randomized to either 26 weeks of continuation chamomile therapy or placebo in a double-blinded, placebo-substitution design. The primary outcome was time to relapse during continuation therapy, analysed using Cox proportional hazards. Secondary outcomes included the proportion who relapsed, treatment-emergent adverse events, and vital sign changes. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01072344. Results Between March 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015, we enrolled 179 participants. Of those, 93 (51.9%) were responders and agreed to continue in the double-blind randomized controlled trial. A numerically greater number of placebo-switched (n = 12/47; 25.5%) versus chamomile-continuation (n = 7/46; 15.2%) participants relapsed during follow-up. Mean time to relapse was 11.4 ± 8.4 weeks for chamomile and 6.3 ± 3.9 weeks for placebo. Hazard of relapse was non-significantly lower for chamomile (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.20–1.33; P = 0.16). During follow-up, chamomile participants maintained significantly lower GAD symptoms than placebo (P = 0.0032), with significant reductions in body weight (P = 0.046) and mean arterial blood pressure (P = 0.0063). Both treatments had similar low adverse event rates. Conclusions Long-term chamomile was safe and significantly reduced moderate-to-severe GAD symptoms, but did not significantly reduce rate of relapse. Our limited sample size and lower than expected rate of placebo group relapse likely contributed to the non-significant primary outcome finding. Possible chamomile superiority over placebo requires further examination in large-scale studies.

Replicability of findings is an essential prerequisite of research. For both basic and clinical research, however, low replicability of findings has recently been reported. Replicability may be affected by research biases not sufficiently controlled for by the existing research standards. Several biases such as researcher allegiance or selective reporting are well-known for affecting results. For psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, specific additional biases may affect outcome (e.g. therapist allegiance, therapist effects or impairments in treatment implementation). For meta-analyses further specific biases are relevant. In psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research these biases have not yet been systematically discussed in the context of replicability. Using a list of 13 biases as a starting point, we discuss each bias's impact on replicability. We illustrate each bias by selective findings of recent research, showing that (1) several biases are not yet sufficiently controlled for by the presently applied research standards, (2) these biases have a pernicious effect on replicability of findings. For the sake of research credibility, it is critical to avoid these biases in future research. To control for biases and to improve replicability, we propose to systematically implement several measures in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, such as adversarial collaboration (inviting academic rivals to collaborate), reviewing study design prior to knowing the results, triple-blind data analysis (including subjects, investigators and data managers/statisticians), data analysis by other research teams (crowdsourcing), and, last not least, updating reporting standards such as CONSORT or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR).

This "Goldilocks effect" suggests a more complex relation of intervention use to outcome might exist.