No abstract

BackgroundMicroarray experiments are increasing in size and samples are collected asynchronously over long time. Available data are re-analysed as more samples are hybridized. Systematic use of collected data requires tracking of biomaterials, array information, raw data, and assembly of annotations. To meet the information tracking and data analysis challenges in microarray experiments we reimplemented and improved BASE version 1.2.ResultsThe new BASE presented in this report is a comprehensive annotable local microarray data repository and analysis application providing researchers with an efficient information management and analysis tool. The information management system tracks all material from biosource, via sample and through extraction and labelling to raw data and analysis. All items in BASE can be annotated and the annotations can be used as experimental factors in downstream analysis. BASE stores all microarray experiment related data regardless if analysis tools for specific techniques or data formats are readily available. The BASE team is committed to continue improving and extending BASE to make it usable for even more experimental setups and techniques, and we encourage other groups to target their specific needs leveraging on the infrastructure provided by BASE.ConclusionBASE is a comprehensive management application for information, data, and analysis of microarray experiments, available as free open source software at http://base.thep.lu.se under the terms of the GPLv3 license.

Background: Panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia (PDA or PD, respectively), is a major public health problem. After having established a PD diagnosis based on the DSM or the ICD systems, the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) is the most widely used interview-based instrument for assessing disorder severity. There is also a self-report version of the instrument (PDSS-SR); both exist in a Swedish translation but their psychometric properties remain untested. Methods: We studied 221 patients with PD/PDA recruited to a randomized controlled preference trial of cognitive-behavioral and brief panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy. In addition to PDSS and PDSS-SR the participants completed self-reports including the Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure, Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, Bodily Sensations Questionnaire and the Mobility Inventory for Agoraphobia. Results: PDSS and PDSS-SR possessed excellent psychometric properties (internal consistency, test-retest reliability) and convergent validity. A single factor structure for both versions was not confirmed. In terms of clinical utility, the PDSS had very high inter-rater reliability and correspondence with PD assessed via structured diagnostic interview. Both versions were sensitive to the effects of PD-focused treatment, although subjects scored systematically lower on the self-report version. Conclusions: The study confirmed the reliability and validity of the Swedish versions of PDSS and PDSS-SR. Both versions were highly sensitive to the effects of two PD-focused treatments and can be used both in clinical and research settings. However, further investigation of the factor structures of both the PDSS and PDSS-SR is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01606592 ARTICLE HISTORY

BackgroundPanic disorder with or without agoraphobia is a commonly occurring disorder affecting 2 to 3% of the population in Sweden. Untreated, panic disorder is a chronic condition that significantly increases the risk for psychiatric comorbidity, morbidity and mortality, employment difficulties, and healthcare utilization. Cognitive behavioral approaches are the recommended first-line treatment for panic disorder; however, many patients in routine care receive another evidence-based psychotherapy, including psychodynamic therapy. Allowing patients to choose among evidence-based approaches to panic disorder may improve outcomes and reduce overall health costs. Trials comparing the ‘gold standard’ treatment for panic disorder to other evidence-based psychotherapies are needed, and also trials that can separate patient preferences for treatment from randomization effects on outcome, disability and healthcare utilization in the longer term.Methods/DesignA phase 2/3 doubly-randomized controlled trial carried out in routine care with 216 adults (aged 18 to 70 years) with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV Panic Disorder (with or without Agoraphobia). Within each clinic, patients are randomized to self-selection, random assignment of treatment, or wait-list. Patients choose or are randomly assigned to either Panic Control Treatment or Panic-Focused Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. Primary outcomes are changes in panic symptom severity, occupational status, and sickness-related absences from work at post-treatment and 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include changes in agoraphobic avoidance, psychiatric comorbidity, disability, and healthcare utilization. The study also employs elements of an effectiveness trial as therapist and service-related effects on outcome will be estimated. Putative change mechanisms for the two treatments are also assessed.DiscussionCognitive behavioral and psychodynamic therapies are both evidence-based approaches that are routinely offered to panic disordered patients in Sweden. However, little is known about the relative effectiveness of these two approaches for panic/agoraphobia, work-related disability and healthcare utilization over the longer term. The current trial (POSE) also addresses the important but understudied issue of whether patient preference for a particular psychotherapeutic approach moderates outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01606592 (registered 19 March 2012).

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> It remains unclear whether offering psychiatric patients their preferred treatment influences outcomes at the symptom level. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To assess whether offering patients with panic disorder with/without agoraphobia (PD/A) a choice between 2 psychotherapies yields superior outcomes to random assignment. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In a doubly randomised, controlled preference trial (DRCPT), 221 adults with PD/A were randomly assigned to: choosing panic-focused psychodynamic therapy (PFPP) or panic control treatment (PCT; a form of cognitive behavioural therapy); random assignment to PFPP or PCT; or waiting list control. Primary outcomes were PD/A severity, work status and work absences at post-treatment assessment. Outcomes at post-treatment assessment, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups were assessed using segmented multilevel linear growth models. <b><i>Results:</i></b> At post-treatment assessment, the choice and random conditions were superior to the control for panic severity but not work status/absences. The choice and random conditions did not differ during treatment or follow-up for the primary outcomes. For panic severity, PCT was superior to PFPP during treatment (standardised mean difference, SMD, –0.64; 95% confidence interval, CI, –1.02 to –0.25); PFPP was superior to PCT during follow-up (SMD 0.62; 95% CI 0.27–0.98). There was no allocation by treatment type interaction (SMD –0.57; 95% CI –1.31 to 0.17). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Previous studies have found that offering patients their preferred treatment yields small to moderate effects but have not employed designs that could rigorously test preference effects. In this first DRCPT of 2 evidence-based psychotherapies, allowing patients with PD/A to choose their preferred treatment was not associated with improved outcomes. Further DRCPTs are needed.