AzTrials
AzTrials

Anxiety DisorderPhase 4NCT02153944

Cognitive vs. Emotional Psychopharmacological Manipulations of Fear vs. Anxiety

A Phase 4 study testing Propranolol and Methylphenidate in people with Anxiety Disorder, run by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Objective: The overall aim of this protocol is to examine the effect of pharmacological manipulations of affective and cognitive processes on anxiety and task performance. Ultimately, the goal is 1) to provide insight into the relative influence of cognitive and affective states on anxiety, 2) generate theoretical… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 50 years
Conditions the study is for
Anxiety Disorder
What is being tested?
Propranolol and Methylphenidate
Type of treatment
Pill or oral medicine
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
142 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
16 Jun 2014to 7 Oct 2021
Phase
Phase 4
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 50 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Ages 18-50
  • Males and females
  • Subjects give their own consent

Who cannot join

  • Clinically significant prior exposure to medications, that based on the investigator s judgment, may impact the study, such as Ritalin (MPH).
  • Any significant medical or neurological problems (e.g. cardiovascular illness, respiratory illness, neurologic illness, seizure, etc.)
  • Raynaud syndrome
  • IQ < 80
  • Sinus bradycardia (P<45), or tachycardia (P>90)
  • Significant ECG abnormality (i.e., greater than first-degree block etc.) as determined by investigators judgement
Show all 28Show fewer
  • High or low blood pressure (SBP>140 or SBP<90; SDP<50 or SDP>90)
  • A first-degree family history of mania, schizophrenia, or other psychoses based on verbal reports
  • Significant past psychopathology (e.g., hospitalization for psychiatric disorders, recurrent depression, suicide attempt, psychoses)
  • Current psychiatric disorders according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-V
  • Current alcohol or substance use disorder
  • Current use of psychotropic medication
  • Impaired hearing (clinic study only)
  • Pregnancy or positive pregnancy test
  • Neurological syndrome of the wrist (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome) for shocks to be delivered on affected arm.
  • Breastfeeding
  • Significant lab abnormalities (i.e., complete blood count (CBC) with differential, acute care and mineral panel, hepatic panel, TSH)
  • Positive urine toxicology screen
  • You have been in another study with an experimental medication within the previous month
  • For physiological/clinic participants: small startle reactivity (a change in EMG activity that is less than 3 times the baseline EMG activity)
  • Current daily use of anti-acid -medication or within 5 half-lives of study visit if taken on pro re nata (PRN) basis
  • Employee of National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) or an immediate family member who is a NIMH employee.
  • For functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) participants: Any medical condition that increases risk for fMRI:
  • Any metal implants (clips, screws, plates, pins, etc.) that are not safe for MRI or metal fragments cause by injuries or metal working. Metal implants that are deemed MRI safe are allowable (i.e. certain screws).
  • Any sort of medical implants that are not safe for the MRI (aneurysm clips, pacemaker, insulin pump, Hickman line, etc.). Medical implants that are MRI safe (Nexplanon implant, certain intrauterine device (IUDs), etc.) are allowable.
  • Permanent eye liner and tattoos above the neck
  • Patients who have difficulty lying flat on their back for up to 90 min in the scanner
  • Participants who are uncomfortable in small closed spaces (have claustrophobia) and would feel uncomfortable in the MRI machine

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, 9000 Rockville Pike

    Bethesda, Maryland, 20892

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Cognitive vs. Emotional Psycho-Pharmacological Manipulations of Fear vs. Anxiety

Objective:

The overall aim of this protocol is to examine the effect of pharmacological manipulations of affective and cognitive processes on anxiety and task performance. Ultimately, the goal is 1) to provide insight into the relative influence of cognitive and affective states on anxiety, 2) generate theoretical models that can be applied to a better understanding of the interaction between cognition and emotion, 3) develop a better screening approach to candidate anxiolytics, and 4) help formulate novel therapeutic interventions for clinical anxiety.

Read more

Excessive or inappropriately sustained anxiety and fear lead to the most common group of psychiatric disorders. A number of theoretical models have been proposed to understand the mechanisms engaged in these maladaptive behaviors. Most recent emphasis has focused on the synergistic contribution of cognitive and emotional processes. Our laboratory has been instrumental in delineating aspects of behavioral and neural processes that are associated with fear and anxiety, using psychophysiological and neuroimaging measures of fear and anxiety. Evidence shows that levels of anxiety modulate cognitive performance, such as working memory or perceptual discrimination, and that, conversely, cognitive engagement influences severity of experimentally induced anxiety. The exact contribution of emotional processes vs. cognitive processes to the experience of anxiety is not clear, similarly to the neural mechanisms underlying these interactions.

In this protocol, we propose to manipulate pharmacologically separately cognitive and emotional processes to dissociate their contribution to fear/anxiety, while using state-of-the-art measures of anxiety derived from translational work. Indeed, we already developed integrative experimental models of fear and anxiety via the manipulation of predictable and unpredictable shock, respectively. We already employed successfully these models to measure anxiolytic and anxiogenic effects of various compounds such as alprazolam, citalopram, hydrocortisone, and oxytocin in healthy participants.

We propose in a first step (step-1) to start with a simple proof-of-concept study, using two pharmacological compounds in a double-blind randomized parallel design, each preferentially acting respectively on the cognitive (methylphenidate) or affective (propranolol) domain, and using a single cognitive process (working memory). In a second step (step-2), we propose to extend this work to the fMRI to examine the cognitive correlates of the effects seen in the step-1 behavioral study, specifically with methylphenidate. Whereas the comparison among three drugs is planned for the electrophysiology study, we plan to study only the drug that improves cognition in the fMRI. The reason we will focus on methylphenidate in step 2 is that our overall goal is to study the effect of improving cognitive functions on anxiety using neuroimaging. To reach this goal, we plan to use different approaches to boost cognitive functions in the coming years, including psychopharmacology, direct current stimulation, mindfulness. Methylphenidate is our first psychopharmacological study towards this objective. Future work will also expand to other compounds and cognitive processes, as well as vary the strategy to induce anxiety. Presently, anxiety will be induced using the threat of shock, while participants perform the task. We will examine in step-1 whether 1) the reduction of induced-anxiety with propranolol improves cognitive performance, and 2) the facilitation of cognitive performance with methylphenidate reduces induced-anxiety. In step-2, we will identify the neural mechanisms underlying the effects of methylphenidate, the drug having beneficial effects on cognitive function.

Study population:

Medically and psychiatrically healthy adult males and females, aged 18 to 50 years.

Design:

The study is a double-blind design. For step-1, three groups of healthy participants will come for one experimental session. During this session, they will be asked to perform a working memory task under the threat of shock, i.e., while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks. Each group will receive one drug challenge, either placebo, propranolol (40 g) or methylphenidate (20 mg). For step-2, the study tasks will be conducted in a 3T fMRI scanner. In this step, only methylphenidate and placebo will be compared. Two groups will come for one experimental session, one will receive placebo and the other one will receive methylphenidate (20 mg). In a follow-up study for the step-2 fMRI the two groups will come for one experimental fMRI session one will receive methylphenidate (60 mg).

Outcome measures:

In step-1, the primary outcome measures are the startle reflex and performance on the working memory task. In step-2, the primary outcome measures are the startle reflex and the cerebral fMRI blood-oxygen-level ...

Read the detailed description

Objective:

The overall aim of this protocol is to examine the effect of pharmacological manipulations of affective and cognitive processes on anxiety and task performance. Ultimately, the goal is 1) to provide insight into the relative influence of cognitive and affective states on anxiety, 2) generate theoretical models that can be applied to a better understanding of the interaction between cognition and emotion, 3) develop a better screening approach to candidate anxiolytics, and 4) help formulate novel therapeutic interventions for clinical anxiety.

Excessive or inappropriately sustained anxiety and fear lead to the most common group of psychiatric disorders. A number of theoretical models have been proposed to understand the mechanisms engaged in these maladaptive behaviors. Most recent emphasis has focused on the synergistic contribution of cognitive and emotional processes. Our laboratory has been instrumental in delineating aspects of behavioral and neural processes that are associated with fear and anxiety, using psychophysiological and neuroimaging measures of fear and anxiety. Evidence shows that levels of anxiety modulate cognitive performance, such as working memory or perceptual discrimination, and that, conversely, cognitive engagement influences severity of experimentally induced anxiety. The exact contribution of emotional processes vs. cognitive processes to the experience of anxiety is not clear, similarly to the neural mechanisms underlying these interactions.

In this protocol, we propose to manipulate pharmacologically separately cognitive and emotional processes to dissociate their contribution to fear/anxiety, while using state-of-the-art measures of anxiety derived from translational work. Indeed, we already developed integrative experimental models of fear and anxiety via the manipulation of predictable and unpredictable shock, respectively. We already employed successfully these models to measure anxiolytic and anxiogenic effects of various compounds such as alprazolam, citalopram, hydrocortisone, and oxytocin in healthy participants.

We propose in a first step (step-1) to start with a simple proof-of-concept study, using two pharmacological compounds in a double-blind randomized parallel design, each preferentially acting respectively on the cognitive (methylphenidate) or affective (propranolol) domain, and using a single cognitive process (working memory). In a second step (step-2), we propose to extend this work to the fMRI to examine the cognitive correlates of the effects seen in the step-1 behavioral study, specifically with methylphenidate. Whereas the comparison among three drugs is planned for the electrophysiology study, we plan to study only the drug that improves cognition in the fMRI. The reason we will focus on methylphenidate in step 2 is that our overall goal is to study the effect of improving cognitive functions on anxiety using neuroimaging. To reach this goal, we plan to use different approaches to boost cognitive functions in the coming years, including psychopharmacology, direct current stimulation, mindfulness. Methylphenidate is our first psychopharmacological study towards this objective. Future work will also expand to other compounds and cognitive processes, as well as vary the strategy to induce anxiety. Presently, anxiety will be induced using the threat of shock, while participants perform the task. We will examine in step-1 whether 1) the reduction of induced-anxiety with propranolol improves cognitive performance, and 2) the facilitation of cognitive performance with methylphenidate reduces induced-anxiety. In step-2, we will identify the neural mechanisms underlying the effects of methylphenidate, the drug having beneficial effects on cognitive function.

Study population:

Medically and psychiatrically healthy adult males and females, aged 18 to 50 years.

Design:

The study is a double-blind design. For step-1, three groups of healthy participants will come for one experimental session. During this session, they will be asked to perform a working memory task under the threat of shock, i.e., while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks. Each group will receive one drug challenge, either placebo, propranolol (40 g) or methylphenidate (20 mg). For step-2, the study tasks will be conducted in a 3T fMRI scanner. In this step, only methylphenidate and placebo will be compared. Two groups will come for one experimental session, one will receive placebo and the other one will receive methylphenidate (20 mg). In a follow-up study for the step-2 fMRI the two groups will come for one experimental fMRI session one will receive methylphenidate (60 mg).

Outcome measures:

In step-1, the primary outcome measures are the startle reflex and performance on the working memory task. In step-2, the primary outcome measures are the startle reflex and the cerebral fMRI blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses. For both step-1 and step-2, secondary measures include skin conductance, heart rate, and subjective measures of anxiety.

Being tested
Propranolol, Methylphenidate, Placebo
Keywords
Startle, Induced-Threat, Memory, Stimulant, Cognitive Interference
Medical subject headings
Anxiety Disorders

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • PropranololDrug

    Propranolol 40 mg was given orally during study visit

  • MethylphenidateDrug

    Methylphenidate 20mg was given orally during study visit

  • PlaceboDrug

    Placebo was given orally during study visit

Study groups in NCT02153944
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Behavioral: Drug challenge with methylphenidateExperimentalParticipant received methylphenidate 20 mg orally during study visit
Receives: Drug: Methylphenidate
Behavioral: Drug challenge with placeboPlacebo comparatorParticipant received placebo orally during study visit
Receives: Drug: Placebo
Behavioral: Drug challenge with propranololExperimentalParticipants received propranolol 40mg orally during study visit
Receives: Drug: Propranolol
fMRI: Drug challenge with methylphenidateExperimentalParticipant received methylphenidate 20 mg orally during study visit
Receives: Drug: Methylphenidate
fMRI: Drug challenge with placeboPlacebo comparatorParticipant received placebo orally during study visit
Receives: Drug: Placebo

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Magnitude of Startle Reflex During Safe Condition

    The magnitude of the startle reflex during working memory tasks (n-back) while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. The participant holds each stimulus in short-term memory while new stimuli are presented. For each new item presented, the participant's task is to decide if it is the same as the stimulus presented one time before (1Back), two times before (2Back) or three times before (3Back) by responding "yes" if the stimulus currently presented matches the stimulus presented earlier. Participants responded with a button press. The startle reflex was elicited with a 102 decibel (dB) white noise (40-ms duration) delivered via headphone. The eyeblink component of the startle reflex was recorded binaurally with two silver chloride (AgCl) electrodes placed under one eye.

    Measured: 20-120 milliseconds following the onset of the startle stimulus

  2. Magnitude of Startle Reflex During Threat Condition

    The magnitude of the startle reflex during working memory tasks (n-back) while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. The participant holds each stimulus in short-term memory while new stimuli are presented. For each new item presented, the participant's task is to decide if it is the same as the stimulus presented one time before (1Back), two times before (2Back) or three times before (3Back) by responding "yes" if the stimulus currently presented matches the stimulus presented earlier. Participants responded with a button press. The startle reflex was elicited with a 102 decibel (dB) white noise (40-ms duration) delivered via headphone. The eyeblink component of the startle reflex was recorded binaurally with two silver chloride (AgCl) electrodes placed under one eye.

    Measured: 20-120 milliseconds following the onset of the startle stimulus

  3. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back) - Safe Condition

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one, two, or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. The participant holds each stimulus in short-term memory while new stimuli are presented. For each new item presented, the participant's task is to decide if it is the same as the stimulus presented one time before (1Back), two times before (2Back) or three times before (3Back)" by responding "yes" if the stimulus currently presented matches the stimulus presented earlier. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1Back, 2Back, 3Back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: Task started 90 minutes post drug admin up to max of 125 mins post drug admin (max total is 35 mins) during a 6-hour single day visit

  4. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back) - Threat Condition

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one, two, or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. The participant holds each stimulus in short-term memory while new stimuli are presented. For each new item presented, the participant's task is to decide if it is the same as the stimulus presented one time before (1Back), two times before (2Back) or three times before (3Back)" by responding "yes" if the stimulus currently presented matches the stimulus presented earlier. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1Back, 2Back, 3Back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: task started 90 minutes post drug admin up to max of 125 mins post drug admin (max total is 35 mins) during a 6-hour single day visit

  5. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-Back): Safe Condition - 1BACK - Run 1

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe).Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes post drug admin plus zero seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  6. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back): Threat Condition - 1BACK - Run 1

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 90 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  7. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back): Safe Condition - 1BACK - Run 2

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 180 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  8. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back): Threat Condition - 1BACK - Run 2

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 260 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  9. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back): Safe Condition - 3BACK - Run 1

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes post drug admin plus 45 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  10. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back): Threat Condition - 3BACK - Run 1

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 135 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  11. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back): Safe Condition - 3BACK - Run 2

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 215 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  12. Proportion of Correct Responses in the Working Memory Task (N-back): Threat Condition - 3BACK - Run 2

    Stimuli were presented one at a time on a screen. Participants were instructed to remember (working memory) one or three stimuli back (N-back) from the current stimulus on the screen while undergoing alternating periods of safety and threat of shock i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe). Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1- and 3-back. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Participants indicated whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task included 3 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block represented a given level of difficulty, i.e., 1- and 3-back. Performance on working memory task (n-back) accuracy was measured across condition (threat and safe) x Load (1-back, 3-back) using repeated measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 305 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  13. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Safe Condition - 1BACK - Run 1

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition( threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes post drug admin plus zero seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  14. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Threat Condition - 1BACK - Run 1

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition (threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 90 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  15. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Safe Condition - 1BACK - Run 2

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition (threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 180 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  16. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Threat Condition - 1BACK - Run 2

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition (threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 260 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  17. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Safe Condition - 3BACK - Run 1

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition (threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes post drug admin plus 45 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  18. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Threat Condition - 3BACK - Run 1

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition (threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 135 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  19. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Safe Condition - 3BACK - Run 2

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition (threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 215 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  20. Reaction Time to Stimuli: Threat Condition - 3BACK - Run 2

    Reaction time (RT) is the time it takes to respond to stimuli. Participants RTs were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks (threat) or no shock (safe) during the n-back paradigm task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back. The task was organized in 2 runs, 8 blocks per run (4 safe and 4 threat presented alternatively), 18 sequential letters per block. Each block (threat or safe) corresponded to 2 tasks, 1- and 3-back tasks. RT was analyzed using condition (threat, safe) x Load (1Back, 3Back) repeated-measures ANOVA.

    Measured: 90 minutes plus 305 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  21. Measure of BOLD Response in Brain Clusters - Safe Condition - 1BACK

    The blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses were measured using an fMRI scanner. The cerebral fMRI BOLD uses magnetic fields to measure localized changes in brain blood flow and blood oxygenation in activated regions-of-interest (ROI). Participants BOLD responses were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe) during the n-back task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back.

    Measured: started 90 minutes post drug administration plus 90 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  22. Measure of BOLD Response in Brain Cluster - Threat Condition - 1BACK

    The blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses were measured using an fMRI scanner. The cerebral fMRI BOLD uses magnetic fields to measure localized changes in brain blood flow and blood oxygenation in activated regions-of-interest (ROI). Participants BOLD responses were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe) during the n-back task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back.

    Measured: started 90 minutes post drug administration plus up to 360 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  23. Measure of BOLD Response in Brain Clusters - Safe Condition - 3BACK

    The blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses were measured using an fMRI scanner. The cerebral fMRI BOLD uses magnetic fields to measure localized changes in brain The blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses were measured using an fMRI scanner. The cerebral fMRI BOLD uses magnetic fields to measure localized changes in brain blood flow and blood oxygenation in activated regions-of-interest (ROI). Participants BOLD responses were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe) during the n-back task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back.

    Measured: started 90 minutes post drug administration plus up to 270 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

  24. Measure of BOLD Response in Brain Cluster - Threat Condition - 3BACK

    The blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses were measured using an fMRI scanner. The cerebral fMRI BOLD uses magnetic fields to measure localized changes in brain blood flow and blood oxygenation in activated regions-of-interest (ROI). Participants BOLD responses were measured while undergoing alternating periods of safety and shock threat conditions i.e. while anticipating unpleasant electric shocks or no shock (safe) during the n-back task. The n-back is a paradigm used to assess working memory function by presenting sequential stimuli individually. Two levels of difficulties were tested: 1Back and 3Back (n-back). Participants were instructed to indicate whether the letter currently displayed was the same as the letter presented 1 or 3 letters back.

    Measured: started 90 minutes post drug administration plus up to 450 seconds within a 6-hour study visit

Secondary outcomes (4)
  1. Measure of Level of Anxiety

    The level of anxiety was assessed using the State Anxiety Inventory questionnaire. The State Anxiety Scale (S-Anxiety) evaluates the current state of anxiety. The State Anxiety Scale has 20 items. All items are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from "1 = not at all" to "4 = very much so". The scale has a minimum score of 20 and a maximum score of 80. Higher score indicates greater anxiety. State Anxiety score was measured at different time points during the study.

    Measured: 20 minutes after arrival for study; 80, 100, & 125 minutes post drug administration

  2. Measure of Level of Anxiety

    The level of anxiety was assessed using the State Anxiety Inventory questionnaire. The State Anxiety Scale (S-Anxiety) evaluates the current state of anxiety. The State Anxiety Scale has 20 items. All items are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from "1 = not at all" to "4 = very much so". The scale has a minimum score of 20 and a maximum score of 80. Higher score indicates greater anxiety. State Anxiety score was measured at different time points during the study.

    Measured: 20 minutes after arrival for study; 10 minutes & 145 minutes post drug administration

  3. Measure of Heart Rate

    The heart rate was monitored with two disposable electrodes on the ribcage midway between the waist and the armpit.

    Measured: 20 minutes after arrival for study; 80 minutes & 125 minutes post drug administration

  4. Measure of Heart Rate

    The heart rate was monitored with two disposable electrodes on the ribcage midway between the waist and the armpit.

    Measured: 20 minutes after arrival for study; 10 minutes & 145 minutes post drug administration

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted3 Jun 2014 (estimated)
  2. Study start16 Jun 2014
  3. Primary completion7 Oct 2021
  4. Study completion7 Oct 2021

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Quadruple blind
Who is masked
Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
142 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02153944
Sponsor's protocol ID
140114
Other IDs
14-M-0114
Status last verified
Oct 2021
First submitted
31 May 2014
Last updated
11 Apr 2023
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No

Publications

  • Gaillard C, Lago TR, Gorka AX, Balderston NL, Fuchs BA, Reynolds RC, Grillon C, Ernst M. Methylphenidate modulates interactions of anxiety with cognition. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 21;11(1):544. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01621-2.

    PubMed 34675189

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 4 study testing Propranolol and Methylphenidate in people with Anxiety Disorder, run by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 28 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Apr 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 11 Apr 2023). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Magnitude of Startle Reflex During Safe Condition (time frame: 20-120 milliseconds following the onset of the startle stimulus). The study lists 24 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02153944, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Apr 2023.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in