Evaluating the Efficacy of a Digital Therapeutic (CT-152) as an Adjunct to Antidepressant Treatment in Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: Protocol for the MIRAI Remote Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is common worldwide and can be highly disabling. People with MDD face many barriers to treatment and may not experience full symptom relief even when treated. Therefore, new treatment modalities are needed for MDD. Digital therapeutics (DTx) may provide people with MDD an additional treatment option. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe a phase 3 remote, multicenter, randomized, masked, sham-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a smartphone app-based DTx (CT-152) in adult participants diagnosed with MDD, used as an adjunct to antidepressant therapy (ADT). METHODS: Participants aged 22-64 years with a current primary diagnosis of MDD and an inadequate response to ADT were included. Participants were randomized 1:1 to CT-152 or a sham DTx. CT-152 is a smartphone app-based DTx that delivers a cognitive-emotional and behavioral therapeutic intervention. The core components of CT-152 are the Emotional Faces Memory Task exercises, brief lessons to learn and apply key therapeutic skills, and SMS text messaging to reinforce lessons and encourage engagement with the app. The sham DTx is a digital working memory exercise with emotionally neutral stimuli designed to match CT-152 for time and attention. Participants took part in the trial for up to 13 weeks. The trial included a screening period of up to 3 weeks, a treatment period of 6 weeks, and an extension period of 4 weeks to assess the durability of the effect. Sites and participants had the option of an in-person or remote screening visit; the remaining trial visits were remote. Efficacy was evaluated using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. The durability of the effect was evaluated with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale. Adverse events were also assessed. Satisfaction, measured by the Participant and Healthcare Professional Satisfaction Scales, and health status, measured by the EQ-5D-5L, were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: This study was initiated in February 2021 and had a primary completion date in October 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the methodological design for the first evaluation of CT-152 as an adjunct to ADT. This study protocol is methodologically robust and incorporates many aspects of conventional pivotal pharmaceutical phase 3 trial design, such as randomization and safety end points. Novel considerations included the use of a sham comparator, masking considerations for visible app content, and outcome measures relevant to DTx. The rigor of this methodology will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CT-152. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04770285; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04770285. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/56960.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".