Treatments for Anxiety: Meditation and Escitalopram

Mindfulness meditation treatments have been growing in popularity and becoming widely disseminated, and people with anxiety are interested in mindfulness. A benefit of mindfulness interventions is that they can be provided outside of a mental health setting, which may make them more acceptable to patients. Although mindfulness meditation is gaining popularity, there is no information how this treatment strategy compares with standard treatment, such as with medication. Patients need more information about the comparison of treatments to be able to make informed decisions about their health care. We propose the first randomized, controlled study to assess the comparative effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) compared to escitalopram, a standard medication for patients with anxiety disorders such as generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. Patients will be randomized into two 8-week treatments: (1) MBSR and (2) escitalopram. To enroll the necessary sample, we will utilize three study sites in different geographic locations that each have strong clinical and research infrastructures: Georgetown University Medical Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and New York University Langone Medical Center. Thus, we will take advantage of three productive teams with previous successful collaborations and experience in mind-body treatment studies. Adaptations and Additional Aims: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was transitioned to a virtual format (on-line videoconference visits) in March 2020 as a pilot adaptation with the introduction of additional aims to explore the following: (1) the comparative effectiveness and treatment satisfaction for in-person MBSR versus virtual MBSR and (2) the comparative effectiveness of virtual MBSR versus virtual pharmacotherapy. An additional 202 participants were randomized to the virtual version of the study to support these aims. Note about the in-person recruitment: Due to the impact of pandemic-related and participant-related confounders, it has not been possible to return to in-person treatments since March 2020. Before the pandemic, we had published a methods paper adopting (a priori) a non-inferiority margin of 0.495 points on the CGI-S for the analysis of the primary hypothesis. Although we were not able to enroll the proposed sample size of 368 due to the pandemic, with 276 patients randomized, we have sufficient statistical power of 80% for our original analysis to stop in person enrollment.