108. PREVENT: A Randomized Controlled Trial for the Prevention of First-Episode Psychosis Comparing Cognitive–Behavior Therapy (CBT), Clinical Management, and Aripiprazole Combined and Clinical Management and Placebo Combined

Abstract

Concurrent Oral Presentations S57 more premature terminations in ARI + CM and PL + CM compared to CBT. Conclusion: Pairwise comparisons showed a clinically relevant reduction regarding the primary (about 30%) and secondary outcome (about 40%) in favor of CBT. Lower drop-out rates in CBT could be interpreted as higher adherence and acceptance of psychotherapy within this trial. Background: Progress in developing drugs in medicine in general and in psychiatry in particular is played by nonpublication of studies. We examined rates of publication of 253 studies funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI) since the year 2000. Methods: We reviewed all studies funded by SMRI from 2000 to 2009 (N = 253). Analyses included rates of publication, time to publication, analysis of the primary outcome measures, and rates of replications. Results: Of the 253 studies funded by SMRI from 2000 to 2009, 10% were not completed. Of the studies completed, rates of publication ranged from 73% of those funded in 2000 to 26% of those funded in 2006. Mean rates of publication from 2000 to 2009 was 54.6%. Mean time to publication from completion of study was 2.06 ± 0.83 years. An analysis of the published positive findings studies showed that 87% of the published papers reported the same primary outcome measures as indicated in the original protocols, and 69% of the published papers reported the same number of patient enrollment as in the protocols. Of the published positive findings studies, 45% have been replicated. Conclusion: Rates of publication in SMRI are similar to those of studies in nonpsychiatric fields funded by the NIH. Lack of communication of results is damaging for the field, as compounds which have already been tested but have not been published might be tested again, leading to unnecessary exposure of patients to study procedure/placebo and to a waste of funds that might be used for innovative compounds instead. Thus, funding agencies might consider holding part of the grant's payment until the study's results are published.