Clinical trial NCT03056157: Psychosocial Rehabilitation After Moral Injury and Loss With Adaptive Disclosure
Official title: Psychosocial Rehabilitation After Moral Injury and Loss With Adaptive Disclosure
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
Moral Injury
Traumatic Loss
Keywords: Moral Injury
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
Traumatic Loss
Adaptive Disclosure
Veterans
Lead sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Sponsor class: FED
Collaborators: name: Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center
name: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center
name: San Diego Veterans Healthcare System
name: Central Texas Veterans Health Care System
First posted: 2017-02-17
Enrollment: 174
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of Adaptive Disclosure for Moral Injury and Loss (AD-MIL), a combat-specific psychotherapy for war-related PTSD stemming from Moral Injury (MI) and traumatic loss (TL) with Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans with PTSD. AD-MIL will be compared to Present Centered Therapy (PCT). AD-MIL is a modified version of Adaptive Disclosure (AD), which has been modified and extended to solely treat MI and TL by targeting psychological and behavioral obstacles to occupational, relationship, and family functioning, as well as quality of life. PCT is a manualized evidenced-based PTSD treatment used to address functioning problems in several large-scale PTSD trials. The primary end-point was psychosocial functioning (improvements in social, educational and occupational functions). Secondary end-points included PTSD, depression, moral emotions (anger, shame, and guilt), alcohol use, self-compassion, and mindful/valued living.

Detailed description: The investigators conducted a multi-site randomized trial comparing Adaptive Disclosure for Moral Injury and Loss (AD-MIL; an expanded version of Adaptive Disclosure) for war-related PTSD stemming from Moral Injury (MI) and traumatic loss (TL) to Present Centered Therapy (PCT; Frost et al., 2014). The primary endpoint was psychosocial functioning. The investigators had six hypotheses:

A: Functional and behavioral changes:

A.1. Immediately post-treatment, and 3- and 6-months post-treatment, Veterans with PTSD randomized to AD-MIL will have greater reductions in social, educational, and occupational disability.

A.2. COVID-19 aim. In the extended time period for the trial, at the post-treatment, or post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment intervals (depending on when the participant was randomized), Veterans with PTSD randomized to AD-MIL will have greater reductions in social, educational and occupational disability (the investigators also explored whether there would be greater PTSD and depression symptom reduction in this interval).

B: Mental health changes:

B.3. AD-MIL will lead to greater reductions in PTSD symptom severity and a smaller percentage of PTSD cases.

B.4. AD-MIL will lead to greater reductions in depressive symptoms. B.5. AD-MIL will lead to greater reductions in shame and guilt B.6. AD-MIL will lead to greater reductions in psychological distress.

Exploratory hypotheses: AD-MIL will lead to greater reductions in aggressive behaviors, suicidal ideation, and alcohol use, and greater increases in compassion for the self and others and social connectedness.

BACKGROUND PTSD is a functionally disabling condition among war Veterans. Approximately 20% of Veterans of post-9-11 operations have clinically significant PTSD and suffer from a variety of co-morbid mental and physical health conditions. They also have extensive functional impairments, aggressive and risky behaviors, and reduced quality of life. Although considerable gains have been made in the VA's dissemination of PTSD treatments that are highly effective with civilian trauma, these therapies have been shown to work considerably less well for war trauma. The investigators have argued that this is partly due to a lack of attention to the military culture and warrior ethos and the unique harms of war trauma, namely, moral injury (MI) and traumatic loss (TL). In addition, PTSD treatments have failed to demonstrate an impact on functioning and quality of life, problems that are no less impacted by the warzone trauma. Instead, symptom change is typically the sole metric of success, and functional deficits are rarely considered. The investigators argue that PTSD symptoms should be conceptualized and targeted as part of the fabric of the whole Veteran and his or her context. The investigators aimed to fill a care-gap in the VA by creating an evidence-based treatment for war-related PTSD stemming from MI and TL, focusing on improving psychosocial functioning. The investigators extended Adaptive Disclosure to treat MI and TL (AD-MIL) by: (1) facilitating emotional-processing of TL and MIs and a healing and action plan by letter writing tasks to the lost person or, depending on the nature of the MI, the person or persons harmed by transgressive acts (MI stemming from personal actions or the failure to act) or the person or persons who were the transgressors (MI stemming from being the victim of others' transgressions or bearing witness to grave transgressive acts); (2) skills training and behavioral contracting to improve functioning and targeting MI- and TL-related psychological and behavioral obstacles to habilitative engagements in occupational, relationship, and family roles; and (3) teaching self- and other-compassion and mindfulness. If found to be effective, AD-MIL will fill a care-gap in the VA, reduce PTSD patients' suffering, and help Veterans reclaim or establish positive relationships, work roles, and self-care routines.

METHOD Overview: The VA sites were Boston, Minneapolis, San Francisco, San Diego, and Central Texas. The coordinating/lead site was VA Boston led by the study PI, Brett Litz, PhD. The trial followed the consensus recommendations for clinical trials in the VA (VA ORD, 2008): (1) clearly defined target symptoms: functional and clinical outcomes were operationalized; (2) reliable and valid measures: assessment tools were selected for their content relevance and psychometric properties; (3) use of blind evaluators of outcome: the evaluator was independent and blind to treatment condition. This assessor reminded participants to help maintain their blind; (4) assessor training: the independent evaluator was carefully trained to criteria and monitored on an ongoing basis; (5) manualized, replicable, specific treatment programs; (6) there was unbiased assignment to treatment arms and (7) treatment adherence: sessions were be recorded, and a random percentage was used to assess treatment integrity. Adherence to the therapy manuals was monitored by senior supervisors. The investigators followed the CONSORT guidelines for randomization and participant tracking.

Participants: The trial required 148 Veterans (including women and members of diverse ethnic and racial groups) with PTSD as a result of military trauma.

Recruitment: Veterans were recruited and treated at the Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, and Waco VAs. Co-Investigators (Co-Is): (a) provided materials describing the nature of the study and the target populations sought, distributing said materials via formal (e.g., staff meetings) and informal (e.g., bulletin boards) channels; (b) attended clinical staff meetings; (c) gave talks to describe various treatments in staff grand rounds and other contexts (e.g., to trainees); and (d) provided feedback to staff about referred patients.

Assessor Training and Adherence: A co-investigator, Dr. Matt Gray (University of Wyoming) trained the assessors prior to beginning enrollment. Training included reading and viewing training materials, observation of CAPS-5 administration, and supervised administration of at least three CAPS-5s. Dr. Gray has expertise in CAPS-5 training and fidelity monitoring. The assessor was considered trained on CAPS-5 when they matched Dr. Gray on three interviews. To establish matching, Dr. Gray co-rated interviews conducted by the assessor. A match occurred when the assessor and Dr. Gray agreed on the diagnosis and were within 2 severity points on all of the symptom clusters (PTSD criteria B, C, D, and E).

All assessments were audiotaped to ensure that a standardized approach was used across patients (provided that the participant consents). Dr. Gray reviewed a random 10% of the assessments. All recordings were stored on a restricted-access encrypted drive. Selected recordings were transported to Dr. Gray via Federal Express that allows tracking.

Random Assignment: Veterans were assigned to PCT or AD-MIL based on a randomized permuted block scheme, blocked by gender and minority status. Block size for gender and minority status was based on the distribution of these variables at each site. The Boston site used constrained randomization (i.e., biased coin design) if unexpected imbalance arose in gender and minority distribution across treatment groups.

Treatment Fidelity Monitoring: Half-time therapists with Ph.Ds. in clinical or counseling psychology and VA internship experiences treating Veterans with PTSD were trained to deliver AD-MIL and PCT. Training involved a review of the respective manuals and supporting materials, intensive one-on-one training and supervision, and weekly and ad hoc supervision (Dr. Litz for AD-MIL; Dr. Harris for PCT). All sessions were audiotaped. Two random session recordings from a random 20% of the cases were rated to ensure fidelity to each treatment approach.

ANALYSES Data Analysis: The longitudinal and clustered nature of the design produced a multilevel or nested data structure (Raudenbush \& Bryk, 2002), with a likelihood of between-subject variability in treatment trajectory over time (e.g., random slopes). In this study, Veterans and therapists were nested (clustered) within performance sites. The lower level (level-1) data consisted of the repeated measures for each individual at each assessment. Level-1 data is nested within upper level (level-2) person-level variables (e.g., study site).

Using SAS 9.4 and R/R Studio, the investigators explored the change trajectory of endpoints over the course of pre-treatment, during-treatment, and post-treatment time intervals. Specifically, the investigators used the linear mixed model regression framework to assess the differential treatment effects of endpoint symptom burden over time. The investigators examined observed measurement scores and specified linear mixed models that best fit the time-change trends (e.g., linear, piecewise). The investigators tested for the presence of random variation, such as between-site cluster effects and between-subject random slopes of treatment effect. The investigators determined the best fit linear mixed effects model as a combination of most appropriate representation of time and empirically-evidenced random and fixed effects.

The linear mixed effects models incorporated clinically relevant time-invariant and time-varying predictors and used Maximum Likelihood Estimation to produce estimates that were unbiased in the presence of random missingness and dropout. These provided an Intent-To-Treat (ITT) analysis that incorporated all available data. Per-protocol and "completer" subset analyses were performed under the same paradigm. Additionally, a subset of subjects who began therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified and analyzed separately; they comprised subjects which began therapy following December 31st, 2020. The tenability of the "At-Random" missingness assumption was assessed and a sensitivity analysis of the results was conducted to determine robustness of the inferences.

Clinical significance: The investigators used a variation of the two-stage Jacobson \& Truax (J\&T; 1991) method to establish a reasonable cutoff between dysfunctional and functional scores. The investigators first established the cutoff A, defined as the point 2 SDs beyond the range of the pre-therapy mean (cutoff A = M(baseline) - 2 SD(baseline)). Next, the investigators generated a reliable change index (RCI) for each participant to ensure that changes were not due to artifact of measurement error (\[x2 - x1\]/Sdiff where x1 represents the participant's pre-treatment total score, x2 represents the participant's post-treatment or follow-up total score, and Sdiff is the standard error of difference between the two test scores. Sdiff was calculated from the test-retest reliability of measures. An RCI larger than 1.96 reflects real change. Individuals were classified as recovered (passed both cutoff A and RC criteria), improved (passed RC criterion but not cutoff A), unchanged (passed neither criterion), or deteriorated (passed RC criterion but symptom scores increased) for each follow-up interval. Chi-square analyses were used to compare proportions per arm at each follow-up.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

1. Served in an active-duty role within the military since September 2001 (Veterans may be eligible whether or not they were deployed to a warzone)
2. Met the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD as a result of military trauma (per Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 \[CAPS-5\]) and reported non-negligible levels of associated functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale \[SDS\] score = 10)
3. Prospective enrollees must have been willing to commit to 12 consecutive weekly therapy sessions lasting up to 90 minutes in duration and to complete assessment materials.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Bipolar or psychotic disorders.
2. Current drug or alcohol dependence (other than caffeine or tobacco dependence). Prospective enrollees who had maintained sobriety for at least 6 weeks immediately prior to the time of enrollment may have been eligible.
3. Evidence of traumatic brain injury severe enough to influence the ability to understand and respond to study procedures
4. Suicidal or homicidal ideation severe enough to warrant immediate attention
5. Concurrent enrollment in any treatment that involves: (1) systematic disclosure of troubling trauma-related memories or (2) present-focused psychosocial skills training for PTSD or (3) supportive therapy/case management on a \> monthly basis or (4) any individual therapy or (5) newly (\< 6 weeks) prescribed pharmacological treatment.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Change in Functional Impairment Assessed Through the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, every treatment session, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Pre-to-Post-Treatment Clinically Significant Change (CSC) in Functional Impairment Assessed Through the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS)
timeFrame: Baseline and post-treatment.
measure: Change in Psychosocial Functioning Assessed Through the Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning (B-IPF)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Functional Impairment Assessed Through the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) for the COVID-19 Cohort
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, every treatment session, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in PTSD Symptom Burden Assessed Through the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) for the COVID-19 Cohort
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, every treatment session, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in PTSD Symptom Severity and Diagnosis Assessed Through the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the COVID-19 Cohort
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Symptoms of Depression Assessed Through the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) for the COVID-19 Cohort
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, every treatment session, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Change in PTSD Symptom Severity and Diagnosis Assessed Through the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Pre- to Post-Treatment Clinically Significant Change (CSC) in PTSD Symptom Severity and Diagnosis Assessed Through the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)
timeFrame: Baseline and post treatment.
measure: Change in PTSD Caseness Assessed Through PTSD Diagnoses Using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in PTSD Symptom Burden Assessed Through the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, every treatment session, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Pre- to Post-Treatment Clinically Significant Change (CSC) in PTSD Symptom Burden Assessed Through the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5)
timeFrame: Baseline and post treatment.
measure: Change in Symptoms of Depression Assessed Through the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, every treatment session, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Guilt Cognitions About a Specific Warzone Event Assessed Through the (Lack of) Justification Subscale of the Brief Trauma Related Guilt Inventory (TRGI-Brief)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Guilt Cognitions About a Specific Warzone Event Assessed Through the Hindsight-Bias Subscale of the Brief Trauma Related Guilt Inventory (TRGI-Brief)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Guilt Cognitions About a Specific Warzone Event Assessed Through the Wrongdoing Subscale of the Brief Trauma Related Guilt Inventory (TRGI-Brief)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Shame Tied to a Specific Warzone Event Assessed Through the Internal Shame Subscale of the Trauma-Related Shame Inventory (TRSI)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Psychological Health and Distress Assessed Through the Schwartz Outcome Scale-10 (SOS-10)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
Other outcomes:
measure: Change in Overall Self-Compassion Assessed Through the Self Compassion Scale (SCS)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in State Anger Assessed Through the Dimensions of Anger Reactions (DAR)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Use of Psychologically Aggressive Behavior Assessed Through the Psychological Aggression Subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Use of Physically Aggressive Behavior Assessed Through the Physical Assault Subscale on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Suicidality Across Assessed Through the Depressive Symptoms Index - Suicidality Subscale (DSI-SS)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after posttreatment.
measure: Change in Alcohol Consumption Assessed Through the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Social Connectedness Assessed Through the Social Connectedness Scale (SCS)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
measure: Change in Compassion for Humanity Assessed Through The Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale (SCBSC)
timeFrame: Assessments occurred at baseline, post treatment, and approximately 3 and 6 months after post treatment.
Locations:
city: San Diego
country: United States
facility: VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA
state: California
city: San Francisco
country: United States
facility: San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA
state: California
city: Boston
country: United States
facility: VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, Jamaica Plain, MA
state: Massachusetts
city: Minneapolis
country: United States
facility: Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN
state: Minnesota
city: Waco
country: United States
facility: Central Texas Veterans Health Care System Waco VA Medical Center, Waco, TX
state: Texas
Study officials:
affiliation: VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, Jamaica Plain, MA
name: Brett T. Litz, PhD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Frost ND, Laska KM, Wampold BE. The evidence for present-centered therapy as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Trauma Stress. 2014 Feb;27(1):1-8. doi: 10.1002/jts.21881.
citation: Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
citation: Straus MA, Douglas EM. A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence Vict. 2004 Oct;19(5):507-20. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.5.507.63686.
citation: Weathers FW, Keane TM, Davidson JR. Clinician-administered PTSD scale: a review of the first ten years of research. Depress Anxiety. 2001;13(3):132-56. doi: 10.1002/da.1029.
citation: Batterham PJ, Fairweather-Schmidt AK, Butterworth P, Calear AL, Mackinnon AJ, Christensen H. Temporal effects of separation on suicidal thoughts and behaviours. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Jun;111:58-63. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.004. Epub 2014 Apr 8.
citation: Forbes D, Hawthorne G, Elliott P, McHugh T, Biddle D, Creamer M, Novaco RW. A concise measure of anger in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. J Trauma Stress. 2004 Jun;17(3):249-56. doi: 10.1023/B:JOTS.0000029268.22161.bd.
citation: Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.59.1.12.
citation: Kubany ES, Haynes SN, Abueg FR, Manke FP, Brennan JM, & Stahura C. Development and validation of the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory (TRGI). Psychological Assessment. 1996; 8(4): 428-444.
citation: Lee RM, Robbins SB. Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1995; 42(2): 232-241.
citation: Marx BP. Development & validation of a PTSD-related impairment scale. Boston VA Research Institute.
citation: Metalsky GI, Joiner TE. The hopelessness depression symptom questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1997; 21(3): 359-384.
citation: Neff KD. The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and identity. 2003; 2(3): 223-250.
citation: Øktedalen T, Hagtvet KA, Hoffart A, Langkaas TF, Smucker M. The Trauma Related Shame Inventory: Measuring trauma-related shame among patients with PTSD. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2014; 36(4): 600-615.
citation: Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol 1). Sage; 2002.
citation: Sheehan DV. (1983). The Anxiety Disease. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons.
citation: Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, Raj BA. The measurement of disability. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996 Jun;11 Suppl 3:89-95. doi: 10.1097/00004850-199606003-00015.
citation: Sobell LC, Agrawal S, Sobell MB, Leo GI, Young LJ, Cunningham JA, Simco ER. Comparison of a quick drinking screen with the timeline followback for individuals with alcohol problems. J Stud Alcohol. 2003 Nov;64(6):858-61. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.858.
citation: Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy SU, Sugarman DB. The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of family issues. 1996; 17(3): 283-316.
citation: Weathers FW, Bovin MJ, Lee DJ, Sloan DM, Schnurr PP, Kaloupek DG, Keane TM, Marx BP. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation in military veterans. Psychol Assess. 2018 Mar;30(3):383-395. doi: 10.1037/pas0000486. Epub 2017 May 11.
citation: Weathers FW, Litz BT, Keane TM, Palmieri PA, Marx BP, Schnurr PP. The PTSD checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Scale available from the National Center for PTSD at www. ptsd.va.gov. 2013; 10(4): 206.
citation: Blais MA, Lenderking WR, Baer L, deLorell A, Peets K, Leahy L, Burns C. Development and initial validation of a brief mental health outcome measure. J Pers Assess. 1999 Dec;73(3):359-73. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7303_5.
citation: Wilson, K. G., Sandoz, E. K., Kitchens, J., & Roberts, M. (2010). The Valued Living Questionnaire: Defining and measuring valued action within a behavioral framework. The Psychological Record, 60(2), 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395706
citation: Hwang, J.Y., Plante, T. & Lackey, K. The development of the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr's Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychol 56, 421-428 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2