Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The alcohol withdrawal syndrome increases autonomic activation and stress in patients during detoxification, leading to alterations in motor activity and sleep irregularities. Intranasal oxytocin has been proposed as a possible treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal. The aim of the present study was to explore whether actigraphy could be used as a tool to register symptoms during alcohol detoxification, whether oxytocin affected actigraphy variables related to motor activity and sleep compared to placebo during detoxification, and whether actigraphy-recorded motor function during detoxification was different from that in healthy controls.
METHODS: This study was a part of a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 40 patients with alcohol use disorder admitted for acute detoxification were included. Of these, 20 received insufflations with intranasal oxytocin and 20 received placebo. Outcomes were actigraphy-recorded motor activity during 5-hour sequences following the insufflations and a full 24-hour period, as well as actigraphy-recorded sleep. Results were related to clinical variables of alcohol intake and withdrawal, including self-reported sleep. Finally, the actigraphy results were compared to those in a group of 34 healthy individuals.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the oxytocin group and the placebo group for any of actigraphy variables registered. Neither were there any correlations between actigraphy-recorded motor function and clinical symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, but there was a significant association between self-reported and actigraphy-recorded sleep. Compared to healthy controls, motor activity during alcohol withdrawal was lower in the evenings and showed increased variability.
CONCLUSION: Intranasal oxytocin did not affect actigraphy-recorded motor activity nor sleep in patients with acute alcohol withdrawal. There were no findings indicating that actigraphy can be used to evaluate the degree of withdrawal symptoms during detoxification. However, patients undergoing acute alcohol withdrawal had a motor activity pattern different from than in healthy controls.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes

Introduction

Increased anxiety, changes in motor activity and sleep disturbances are some of the clinical features of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), reflecting a hyper-excitatory state in the sympathetic part of the central nervous system that develops within the first 24 hours after drinking cessation [1, 2]. During detoxification from alcohol, rest and treatment with benzodiazepines are recommended to reduce symptoms of AWS [3, 4].

Exogenously administered oxytocin has been investigated related to its calming and anxiolytic effects in both healthy volunteers and in patients with depression and anxiety disorders [5-10]. In addition to increase parasympathetic activity, oxytocin has also been shown to be favorable on improving total sleep time and self-reported sleep satisfaction [11] Neither serious adverse events nor dependency to oxytocin have been reported in clinical trials, and it is generally considered to be a safe drug with few adverse effects [12].

A growing number of trials are exploring intranasal oxytocin as a potential drug in the treatment of alcohol use disorder and substance abuse, yet so far with mixed results [13-17]. One pilot trial suggested that the anxiolytic effects of intranasal oxytocin may be favorable in reducing alcohol withdrawal symptoms [18]. However, in a larger study from our group no differences between the oxytocin and placebo group were found [19]. The complexity of the effects of oxytocin has not yet been fully understood, and difficulties in measuring these effects [20, 21] as well as the complexity of assessing alcohol withdrawal, might explain the discrepancy between the two studies.

Actigraphy is a non-invasive, recognized tool for measuring motor activity, rest and sleep [22, 23], and the use of actigraphy can provide a better understanding of the motor activity and sleep patterns in AWS [24]. To our knowledge, no previous studies have used actigraphy to assess changes in motor activity and sleep in this setting. We therefore aimed to explore whether actigraphy could be used as a tool to register clinical symptoms of AWS during a 3-day period alcohol detoxification. We also wanted to explore whether intranasal oxytocin given during detoxification would affect actigraphy-recorded motor activity and sleep and to compare actigraphy registrations in patients with AWS with those from a control group of healthy subjects.

Materials and methods

This study consists of two parts: In part 1, we compared, within the frames of a double-blind randomized controlled trial published previously [19], the effect of intranasal oxytocin and placebo on actigraphy-registered motor activity and sleep, during a 3-day course of alcohol detoxification. In part 2, we compared the actigraphy-registered motor activity and sleep in the total sample of 40 patients included in the randomized controlled trial to a control group of 34 healthy individuals.

The randomized controlled trial was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Mid Norway (2016/45) and the Norwegian Medicines Agency (SLV) (2015-004463-37) and is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02903251). It was also approved by the User Council at the addiction treatment center. The use of healthy volunteers was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Western Norway in a separate application (2011/1668). All patients and controls gave their informed written consent prior to inclusion in the study.

Subjects

In total, 40 patients were included between October 10th 2016 and November 17th 2017, as they were admitted to Lade Addiction Treatment Center, Trondheim, Norway to undergo alcohol detoxification. Inclusion criteria were 18–65 years of age, living in the county of Trøndelag, Norway. Moreover, the patient should have had either a prior episode of alcohol withdrawal symptoms causing significant incapacitation (e.g., inability to work or perform normal activities) or at least one prior medical detoxification with withdrawal symptoms of a magnitude requiring sedative-hypnotic or anticonvulsant medication. The average alcohol consumption should be in the range of 8–30 standard drinks per day for at least two weeks prior to enrolment in the study. The exclusion criteria were: daily treatment with sedative-hypnotic medications such as benzodiazepines or benzodiazepine-like hypnotics; dependence on substances other than alcohol, nicotine or caffeine; inadequately treated, unstable and/or compromising somatic or psychiatric conditions; a body mass index < 17 kg/m2 or a history of anorexia nervosa or bulimia in the past two years; pregnancy; parturition or breast-feeding in the past six months; and the inability to read or understand Norwegian sufficiently well to complete the study questionnaires. In addition, patients were excluded if the alcohol breath test at admission was negative, and the time interval since the last alcohol intake was more than 15 hours. Twenty patients were randomized to the oxytocin group and 20 to the placebo group. All patients fulfilled the ICD-10 diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, dependence (F10.2) (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Flowchart of patients with alcohol use disorder undergoing detoxification from alcohol included in the trial.

The healthy controls primarily consisted of employees at the Department of Psychiatry, Fonna Regional Health Authority and Stavanger University Hospital, Norway. None of the controls were diagnosed with an affective or anxiety disorders, dependency to any drugs, nor were any of them prescribed psychotropic drugs. Data were collected between March 13th 2012 and June 6th 2013. Baseline characteristics of the patients and healthy controls are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the 40 patients with alcohol use disorder undergoing detoxification from alcohol and the 34 healthy controls included in the study.

Variable	Patients	Healthy controls	p-value2
Number of subjects	40	34	-
Age (years), mean ± SD	47.8 ± 10.4	42.0 ± 10.5	0.014
Gender (males), n (%)	28 (70.0)	19 (55.9)	0.209
Employed, n (%)	9 (22.5)	32 (91.1)	<0.001
Self-reported daily alcohol intake last 14 days (standard alcohol units3), mean ± SD	16.0 ± 7.2	NA	-
Phosphatidylethanol blood concentration, (μmol/L), mean ± SD	2.23 ± 1.16⁴	NA	-

NA = not available; SD = standard deviation

1 Separate baseline data for those in the patient group treated with oxytocin (n = 20) and those treated with placebo (n = 20) are presented elsewhere [19].

2 Student’s t-tests for independent samples were used for continuous data, chi-square tests for categorical data.

3 One standard alcohol unit corresponds to 12.8 g ethanol.

⁴ N = 39

Procedures

Immediately after admission, patients were evaluated with the Clinical Institute of Withdrawal Assessment–Alcohol revised (CIWA-Ar) evaluation scale [25]. Withdrawal treatment with the benzodiazepine oxazepam was initiated according to the CIWA-Ar score before further study-specific procedures were performed. After giving their informed consent, patients were randomized to receive either 24 IU oxytocin or placebo double-blinded intranasally twice daily, and study nurses administered the first dose of nasal spray and applied the actigraph on the non-dominant wrist. The patients then followed the standard procedure for admission, including physical examination and repeated CIWA-Ar scorings according to the protocol. The CIWA-Ar is an assessment tool for alcohol withdrawal, and contains ten items, of which nine are scored from 1 to 7 and the last item from 1 to 4. High numbers are reflecting more severe withdrawal symptoms and a maximum score of 67 is possible. Treatment with benzodiazepines was commenced when the scores were 10 and above. Recorded actigraphy variables were related to total CIWA-Ar score as well as the three specific items anxiety, agitation and tremor.

Patients were given a diary to register the number of hours asleep and the number of awakenings each of the two nights during the detoxification period. For all sleep measures, the objective assessment provided by the Actiware software was compared to patients’ self-reported sleep, the registration of white light of the actigraph, and registered sleep in the patients’ records when this information was available.

A Philips Respironics Actiwatch 2.0 was used in both the patient group and the healthy control group. Subjects were instructed in not remove it during the study period. In the patient group, data were sampled at 15-second intervals throughout the three study days. Data were retrieved and analyzed during a full 24-h period at day two as well as in morning and evening sequences throughout the study period. The 24-hour period lasted from 00:00 to 24:00. A morning sequence was defined as the time interval 09:00 to 14:00 and the evening sequence as 18:00 to 23:00. These intervals were chosen to correspond to the times for the administration of nasal spray and the expected duration of effect of oxytocin [26]. The healthy subjects wore the actigraph on the chosen wrist for a period of seven days. The time sequences used in the control group were the same as in the patient group.

Data processing and statistics

The power calculation for the study sample was performed for the previously published study of effects of intranasal oxytocin on benzodiazepine consumption during alcohol withdrawal [19], where the main outcome was detection of a difference in oxazepam consumption between groups. A 10 mg difference in oxazepam was considered to be of clinical interest. Given an expected standard deviation of approximately 10 mg, power = 0.80 and alpha = 0.05, 16 subjects in each group was needed. Based upon an assumed drop-out rate of 20%, a total of 40 patients were included. The same patient sample was included in this study.

All data collected by the actigraph were analyzed using the following variables:

The mean activity count per minute (mean/min), as a measure of overall activity level.

The standard deviation for each time series in percent (SD/min in % of mean), as an intra-individual measure of fluctuations in activity.

The root mean squared successive difference, describing the difference in successive counts from minute to minute (RMSSD/min in % of mean), as a measure of intra-individual variability in the time series.

The RMSSD/SD ratio.

Motor activity was also analyzed based on the mean duration of the active and inactive periods (min), and also on the duration of the longest active period (min), the longest inactive period (min) and the ratio of mean duration of active/inactive periods.

Sleep was measured as self-reported sleep, sleep duration (all actigraphy registered sleep in evening and night), sleep efficiency (SE) (ratio between total sleep time and total duration of time in bed), and total sleep time (duration of sleep during the major sleep period in evening and night).

In part 1, Student’s t-tests for independent samples were used to compare total activity and sleep between the two treatment groups. Motor activity was analyzed from the following predefined five-hour sequences twice daily during the three days of detoxification: The first five hours after admittance and inclusion, evening day 1, morning day, evening day 2, and morning day 3. For each sequence we analyzed the whole 300-minute period, and in addition the last 60-minute period with continuous motor activity in each sequence of the two treatment groups, and also the whole patient group. The criteria for a 60-minute period of continuously motor activity followed those by Krane-Gartiser et al. [27], selecting the last 60-minute period not containing more than two consecutive minutes of zero activity counts from each participant. If that was not found, we selected 60-minute periods with between three and four consecutive minutes of zero activity. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare all consecutive morning and evening sequences to evaluate changes of total activity and in the last active 60 minutes in each period in the 40 patients.

In part 1, we also compared total activity and sleep during a 24-hour period at day 2 [28]. In addition to the measures listed above, each recorded interval (one minute) was defined as either active or inactive, according to whether the activity count was above or below 10% of the mean for the whole recording period for that participant. An active or inactive period was defined as a continuous sequence of such active or inactive intervals. Group differences of the mean duration of active periods (the longest active periods, the inactive periods, and the longest inactive periods) were compared with independent samples t-tests. Sleep variables used included sleep duration, sleep efficiency, and total sleep time [29, 30]. Difference in total duration of sleep in the first and the second night was compared with paired samples t-tests in the two treatment groups, as well as the mean sleep efficiency of both nights in the whole patient group. Over- or underestimation of sleep duration during the first two nights, defined as a deviation of > 10% from actigraphy recordings, was compared between the treatment groups. Pearson’s test of correlations was used to evaluate the relationship between self-reported sleep, actigraphy-measured sleep, CIWA-Ar scores, and total oxazepam dose administered to the 40 patients in the 24-hour period, the first night and the second night.

In part 2, Student’s t-tests for independent samples were used to compare the results from the patients recorded at day 2 with the healthy controls for total motor activity of the full 24-hour period, a five-hour morning sequence, and a five-hour evening sequence.

Statistical tests were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. [31] and the significance level was set to 0.05.

Results

Of the 40 patients included, two patients in the placebo group had incomplete actigraphy recordings for some of the periods. One patient in each treatment group withdrew from the study, and did not complete day 3 (Fig 1). For the sleep analyses, 38 patients had complete actigraphy recordings, 20 in the oxytocin group and 18 in the placebo group. A total of 30 patients completed their sleep diary during the first and second nights and were included in the correlation analyses on self-reported and actigraphy measured sleep, withdrawal symptoms and craving. A typical actigram is shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2

Actigram showing motor activity and sleep during detoxification from alcohol.

The figure shows the actigram of one patient in the oxytocin group, with the activity counts in black, during three days of alcohol withdrawal. The height of a bar represents the motor activity during a time period. Grey areas indicate sleeping periods, as interpreted by the Actiware software.

Part 1

There were no significant differences in daily starting times for actigraphy registration between the oxytocin group and the placebo group (13:51 and 13:13, respectively). The mean daily number of standard alcohol units consumed in the 14 days prior to detoxification was 17.0 ± 8.0 in the oxytocin group and 15.0 ± 6.4 in the placebo group (p = 0.399).

Consecutive comparisons of morning versus evening activities of the five sequences in the complete patient group are shown in Fig 3. Mean total and active period activities were generally significantly lower in the evening sequences than in the morning sequences. The opposite trend was found for SD and RMSSD. Comparison of the total motor activity during a 24-hour sequence showed no significant differences between the treatment groups (Table 2). Sleep did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups in any of the outcome variables in the first, nor in the second night (Table 3). Overall, patients in both groups had a mean sleep efficiency of 79.1% (SD 13.9, range 38.1–97.9%) the first night, while the second night the mean sleep efficiency was 73.0% (SD 20.9, range 11.8–93.4%).

Fig 3

Motor activity in 40 patients with alcohol use disorder during a 3-day course of detoxification.

Actigraphy recordings took place in 5-hour sequences in the mornings (09:00 to 14:00) and in the evenings (18:00 to 23:00). Values are presented as means ± standard deviations. Total motor activity and activity in the most active periods in each sequence are compared to those in the previous sequence using paired t-tests. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (N = 39 Day 2 evening, N = 38 Day 3 morning).

Table 2

Comparisons between the oxytocin group (n = 20) and the placebo group (n = 20) for actigraphy-recorded motor activity and active and inactive periods during a 24-hour period and in a morning and an evening sequence in patients with alcohol use disorder undergoing detoxification from alcohol.

	Actigraphy variable	Oxytocin group (n = 20)	Placebo group (n = 20)	P value1	Difference (95% CI)
Total	Mean/min	132 ± 58	133 ± 57	0.98	-0.4 (-37.2, 36.3)
	SD/min in % of mean	182 ± 43	173 ± 38	0.49	9.0 (-17.1, 35.1)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	144 ± 46	142 ± 45	0.90	1.8 (-27.2, 30.9)
	RMSSD/SD	0.779 ± 0.091	0.812 ± 0.090	0.25	-0.03 (-0.09, 0.02)
	Mean duration active period (min)	6.4 ± 3.0	5.6 ± 1.8	0.34	0.8 (-0.8, 2.3)
	Duration longest active period (min)	75.5 ± 48.7	73.2 ± 36.7	0.87	2.3 (-25.3, 29.9)
	Mean duration inactive period (min)	6.2 ± 3.4	5.2 ± 1.6	0.24	1.0 (-0.7, 2.7)
	Duration longest inactive period (min)	80.5 ± 110.5	54.3 ± 14.0	0.30	26.2 (-24.2, 76.6)
	Ratio, mean duration active/duration inactive period	1.13 ± 0.50	1.18 ± 0.50	0.74	-0.05 (-0.35, 0.25)
Morning sequence2	Mean/min	205 ± 89	208 ± 95	0.92	-3.1 (-62.1, 55.8)
	SD/min in % of mean	132 ± 44	125 ± 39	0.56	7.7 (-62.1, 55.8)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	113 ± 38	110 ± 38	0.76	3.7 (-20.7, 28.1)
	RMSSD/SD	0.868 ± 0.134	0.882 ± 0.118	0.72	-0.01 (-0.10, 0,07)
Evening sequence3	Mean/min	169 ± 72	179 ± 120	0.75	-10.2(-75.1, 54.7)
	SD/min in % of mean	138 ± 38	134 ± 33	0.2	4.2 (-19.0, 27.4)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	131 ± 43	130 ± 38	0.92	1.3 (-25.1, 27.6)
	RMSSD/SD	0.943 ± 0.121	0.969 ± 0.103	0.47	-0.03 (-0.10, 0.05)
Active period morning⁴	Mean/min	211 ± 83	243 ± 116	0.33	-32.1 (-97.5, 33.2)
	SD/min in % of mean	106 ± 35	94 ± 25	0.24	11.6 (-8.2, 31.3)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	107 ± 36	94 ± 33	0.24	13.2 (-9.2, 35.7)
	RMSSD/SD	1.024 ± 0.183	0.990 ± 0.165	0.55	0.34 (-0.08, 0.15)
Active period evening⁵	Mean/min	170 ± 73	169 ± 117	0.98	0.869 (-63.1, 64.9)
	SD/min in % of mean	120 ± 40	120 ± 32	1.00	-0-05 (-23.6–23.5)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	127 ± 54	124 ± 29	0.83	3.0 (-25.4, 23.6)
	RMSSD/SD	1.042 ± 0.144	1.052 ± 0.154	0.84	-0.01 (-0.1, 0.09)

All data are given as means ± standard deviations.

1 Student’s t-test for independent samples.

209:00 to 14:00

3 18:00 to 23:00. In total, 19 patients in the oxytocin group.

⁴ The most active 60 minutes in the morning sequence. In total, 19 patients in the placebo group.

⁵ The most active 60 minutes in the evening sequence. In total, 19 patients in the oxytocin group and 19 patients in the placebo group.

Table 3

Comparison of actigraphy-recorded sleep patterns between the oxytocin group (n = 20) and the placebo group (n = 18) in patients with alcohol use disorder undergoing a 3-day course of detoxification.

		Oxytocin group (n = 20)	Placebo group (n = 18)	P value3	Difference (95% CI)
First night	Sleep duration (min)	472 ± 118	477 ± 113	0.90	-4.9 (-81.1, 71.2)
	Sleep efficiency (%)1	80.6 ± 13.4	77.3 ± 14.7	0.47	3.3 (-5.9, 12.5)
	Wake after sleep onset (min)	44.6 ± 24.6	43.3 ± 22.5	0.87	1.2 (-14.3, 16.8)
	Wake after sleep onset (%)	9.9 ± 6.3	9.2 ± 5.2	0.73	0.7 (-3.2, 4.5)
	Total sleep time (min)2	428 ± 120	434 ± 109	0.87	-6.2 (-81.9, 69.5)
	Total sleep time (%)	90.1 ± 6.3	90.8 ± 5.2	0.73	-0.7 (-4.5, 3.2)
	Total activity counts	7938 ± 4603	7735 ± 4824	0.90	203 (-2899, 3306)
	Activity counts per minute	17.2 ± 10.3	14.7 ± 10.5	0.45	2.5 (-4.1, 9.2)
Second Night	Sleep duration (min)	447 ± 148	452 ± 167	0.94	-4.1 (-106.9, 98.8)
	Sleep efficiency (%)1	71.8 ± 21.0	74.1 ± 21.4	0.74	-2.3 (-16.0, 11.5)
	Wake after sleep onset (min)	56.8 ± 34.2	51.0 ± 35.5	0.61	5.8 (-16.8, 28.4)
	Wake after sleep onset (%)	12.7 ± 6.0	12.9 ± 9.8	0.96	- 0.1 (-5.4, 5,1)
	Total sleep time (min)2	391 ± 130	401 ± 162	0.84	-9.9 (-105.2, 85.5)
	Total sleep time (%)	87.3 ± 6.0	87.1 ± 9.8	0.96	0.1 (-5.1, 5.4)
	Total activity counts	11574 ± 7452	9642 ± 9278	0.480	1932 (-3546, 7410)
	Activity counts per minute	24.4 ± 13.7	24.0 ± 23.8	0.94	0.4 (-12.0, 12.9)

All data are given as means ± standard deviations.

1 Ratio between total sleep time and total duration of time in bed.

2 Duration of sleep during the major sleep period in the evening/night.

3 Student’s t-test for independent samples.

In general, there were no statistically significant correlations between clinical variables related to alcohol intake, withdrawal symptomatology, and actigraphy variables recorded in the 24-hour period on day 2 after admittance in the whole patient group (Table 4). The only exception was a significant correlation between the self-reported alcohol intake and RMSSD/SD (r = 0.340; p = 0.032). Similar results were found when analyzing the oxytocin and the placebo groups separately (Panel A and B in S1 Table). The second night, irrespective of treatment with oxytocin or placebo, correlations between clinical variables related to alcohol intake and withdrawal and actigraphy-recorded sleep variables are presented in Table 5. There were significant correlations between self-reported sleep and actigraphy-recorded total sleep duration (r = 0.44; p = 0.017), sleep efficiency (r = 0.44; p = 0.017), and total sleep time (r = 0.44; p = 0.016), but no such clear-cut correlations were found within each treatment group (Panel A and B in S2 Table).

Table 4

Correlation between clinical variables related to alcohol intake and withdrawal, and actigraphy recordings of motor activity in 40 patients with alcohol use disorder in a 24-hour period on day 2 during detoxification from alcohol.

	Mean/min		SD/min in % of mean		RMSSD/min in % of mean		RMSSD/SD
	r	P value	r	P value	r	P value	r	P value
Self-reported daily alcohol intake last 14 days (standard alcohol units1), mean ± SD	-0.24	0.14	-0.30	0.061	-0.22	0.17	0.34	0.032
Phosphatidylethanol blood concentration, (μmol/L), mean ± SD2	0.09	0.58	0.01	0.95	-0.19	0.91	0.04	0.81
Total CIWA-Ar score	-0.06	0.73	-0.05	0.76	0.02	0.89	0.23	0.16
CIWA-Ar score, tremor	0.17	0.29	0.03	0.87	0.08	0.62	0.10	0.56
CIWA-Ar score, agitation	0.18	0.27	0.11	0.48	0.09	0.59	-0.06	0.73
CIWA-Ar score, anxiety	0.10	0.52	0.07	0.66	0.15	0.37	0.20	0.23
Oxazepam dose	-0.02	0.91	0.004	0.98	0.07	0.68	0.15	0.36

CIWA-Ar = Clinical Institute of Withdrawal Assessment–Alcohol revised; SD = standard deviation. Statistically significant correlations are shown in bold.

1 One standard alcohol unit corresponds to 12.8 g ethanol.

2 N = 39

Table 5

Correlation between clinical variables related to alcohol intake and withdrawal, and actigraphy recordings of sleep variables in 38 patients with alcohol use disorder in the second night during detoxification from alcohol.

	Sleep duration (min)		Sleep efficiency2 (%)		Total sleep time3 (min)		Total sleep time (%)
	r	P value	r	P value	r	P value	r	P value
Self-reported daily alcohol intake last 14 days (standard alcohol units1), mean ± SD	0.29	0.078	0.18	0.28	0.24	0.15	-0.07	0.67
Phosphatidylethanol blood concentration, (μmol/L), mean ± SD	-0.03	0.85	0.05	0.79	-0.08	0.64	-0.09	0.60
Total CIWA-Ar score	0.08	0.61	0.23	0.17	0.11	0.52	0.10	0.55
Oxazepam dose	0.04	0.80	0.22	0.18	0.09	0.61	0.18	0.27
Self-reported sleep	0.44	0.017	0.44	0.017	0.44	0.016	0.18	0.35

CIWA-Ar = Clinical Institute of Withdrawal Assessment–Alcohol revised; SD = standard deviation. Statistically significant correlations are shown in bold.

1 One standard alcohol unit corresponds to 12.8 g ethanol

2 Ratio between total sleep time and total duration of time in bed

3 Duration of sleep during the major sleep period in the evening/night

In total, 10 of the 29 patients from whom data were available estimated their sleep duration within ± 10% of the actigraphy-recorded sleep duration the first night, and 5 of 28 did the same the second night. The numbers of subjects overestimating and underestimating their sleep duration, as well as results from the placebo group and the oxytocin group shown separately, are presented in S3 Table. There was no obvious difference between the treatment groups in the number of subjects overestimating or underestimating their sleep duration, although the placebo group had a tendency of underestimating their sleep more than the oxytocin group did.

Part 2

Motor activity of patients compared to healthy controls is summarized in Table 6. In the 24-hour period of day 2, the patient group showed significantly lower mean (±SD) activity (132 ± 57 vs. 198 ± 75 per minute; p < 0.001). This was also found in the evening sequence (174 ± 99 vs. 254 ±133 per minute; p = 0.005), but the difference did not reach statistical significance in the morning sequence (206 ± 91 vs. 267 ±180 per minute; p = 0.083). The mean duration of active periods was significantly shorter in the patient group than the control group during the 24-hour period (6.0 ± 2.5 vs. 9.2 ± 3.5 min; p < 0.001). Moreover, motor activity in the periods with continuous activity was significantly lower in the patients than in the controls in the evening (169 ± 96 vs. 249 ±169 per minute; p = 0.020), but not in the morning (227 ± 101 vs. 263 ±197 per minute; p = 0.339). The patients also had increased total SD, RMSSD and RMSSD/SD (Table 6).

Table 6

Comparison of motor activity between 40 patients with alcohol use disorder and 34 healthy controls in a full 24-hour period as well as during the morning and evening sequences day 2 during detoxification from alcohol.

	Actigraphy variable	Patient group (n = 40)	Control group (n = 34)	P value1	Difference (95% CI)
Total	Mean/min	132 ± 57	198 ± 75	<0.001	-66.1 (-96.6, -35.5)
	SD/min in % of mean	177 ± 41	145 ± 26	<0.001	32.1 (16.1, 47.7)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	143 ± 44	101 ± 21	<0.001	42.3 (26.5, 58.1)
	RMSSD/SD	0.796 ± 0.091	0.692 ± 0.064	<0.001	0.10 (0.07, 0.14)
	Mean duration active period (min)	6.0 ± 2.5	9.2 ± 3.5	< 0.001	-3.2 (-4.6, -1.7)
	Duration longest active period (min)	74.3 ± 42.6	126.5 ± 65.2	< 0.001	-52.2 (-77.4, -27.1)
	Mean duration inactive period (min)	5.7 ± 2.7	6.1 ± 1.9	0.474	-0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
	Duration longest inactive period (min)	67.4 ± 78.8	62.6 ± 39.2	0.747	4.8 (-24.9, 34.5)
	Ratio, mean duration active/duration inactive period	1.2 ± 0.5	1.5 ± 0.5	< 0.001	-0.4 (-0.6, -0.2)
Morning sequence2	Mean/min	206 ± 91	267 ± 180	0.083	-60.3 (-128.8, 8.2)
	SD/min in % of mean	129 ± 41	112 ± 50	0.126	16.5 (-4.7, 37.7)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	112 ± 38	91.0 ± 25.3	0.007	20.6 (5.8, 35.3)
	RMSSD/SD	0.875 ± 0.125	0.855 ± 0.138	0.526	0.02 (-0.04, 0.08)
Evening sequence3	Mean/min	174 ± 99	254 ± 132	0.005	-79.4 (-133.6, -25.3)
	SD/min in % of mean	136 ± 35	117 ± 40	0.041	18.3 (0.8, 35.8)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	130 ± 40	92.8 ± 30.9	<0.001	37.5 (20.6, 54.4)
	RMSSD/SD	0.957 ± 0.112	0.798 ± 0.108	<0.001	0.16 (0.1, 0.2)
Active period morning⁴	Mean/min	227 ± 101	263 ± 197	0.339	-36.6 (-118, 38.5)
	SD/min in % of mean	100 ± 31	94.0 ± 33.0	0.462	5.6 (-9.4, 20.5)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	100 ± 35	94.5 ± 30.6	0.418	6.3 (-9.2, 21,9)
	RMSSD/SD	1.007 ± 0.173	1.018 ± 0.191	0.794	-0.01 (-0.10, 0.08)
Active period evening⁵	Mean/min	169 ± 96	249 ± 169	0.020	-79.4 (-145.6, 15.6)
	SD/min in % of mean	121 ± 35	105 ± 25	0.043	15.0 (0.5, 29.5)
	RMSSD/min in % of mean	126 ± 43	101 ± 38	0.010	25.1 (6.1, 44.1)
	RMSSD/SD	1.047 ± 0.147	0.944 ± 0.223	0.027	0.1 (0.01, 0.2)

1Student’s t-test for independent samples. All data are given as means ± standard deviations. Statistically significant p values are shown in bold.

209:00 to 14:00

3 18:00 to 23:00. In total, 39 patients, 34 healthy controls.

⁴ The most active 60 minutes in the morning sequence. In total, 39 patients, 33 healthy controls.

⁵ The most active 60 minutes in the evening sequence. In total, 38 patients, 34 healthy controls.

Discussion

The principal finding in the present study is that there was no significant difference in actigraphy-recorded motor activity or sleep between the oxytocin and placebo groups for any of the variables in any of the sequences investigated. Moreover, there were no overall correlations between clinical variables related to alcohol intake or alcohol withdrawal and actigraphy-recorded motor activity and sleep. In contrast, patients had significantly lower motor activity than the healthy controls, particularly in the evening.

We originally had the idea that actigraphy could contribute to a better understanding of motor activity and sleep patterns during alcohol detoxification, and enable a more personalized intervention in acute alcohol withdrawal. However, there were no correlations between the total CIWA-Ar score or the degree of tremor, agitation and anxiety as measured by CIWA-Ar, and actigraphy-recorded motor activity. Investigating variables such as heart rate or skin conductance, which would have been of interest as they represent some of the most prominent clinical findings in acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome, would require another type of equipment. Thus, actigraphy, as least as used in the present study, seems to be a less appropriate method in the monitoring of acute alcohol withdrawal, although it might still be useful in the understanding of sleep disturbances during alcohol withdrawal.

Compared to healthy controls, the patients had a significantly lower motor activity, a finding that was prominent in the evening, but not in the morning. This could be a result of the patients’ restrictions to leave the treatment facility in the evening. It is also possible that the alcohol withdrawal syndrome might have incapacitated them from being as active as they otherwise might have been. Finally, the treatment with oxazepam could also have reduced their level of activity [27]. Longitudinal studies are required to elucidate these issues further.

Even though there was no difference between the oxytocin and placebo groups in activity in the morning and evening sequences, our findings are similar to the results in a study in affective disorders, where no differences in median activity in a 24-hour period were found between acutely admitted patients groups with unipolar depression, bipolar depression, mania or mixed states [28]. Patients undergoing acute alcohol withdrawal have a central nervous sympathetic hyper-excitation due to an alcohol-induced upregulation of glutamate receptors and the sudden loss of alcoholic GABA receptor stimulation [2]. This activation is also seen in patients with bipolar disorder in manic phase, and has been suggested to be a result of dysfunctional activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and elevated noradrenalin and dopamine levels [32]; neurotransmitters also relevant in alcohol withdrawal. The overall increased variability seen in our study is in agreement with previous studies in bipolar disorder [27], depression [33] and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [34]. Our findings do, however, contrast some of the results in another study where patients with bipolar disorder in manic phase had a significantly lower mean actigraphy-recorded activity than the healthy controls in the morning, and the only significant difference in the evening was a higher mean in successive counts from minute to minute (RMSSD/SD). Yet, this was not found in patients with depression [27].

Actigraphy is considered a practical and reliable method for monitoring sleep [22], and its validity has been confirmed when related to data from polysomnography [35, 36]. Yet, later studies have questioned whether it can be used to evaluate sleep disorders and circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders [37] as well as its role for use in patients with insomnia and daytime symptoms [38].

Patients entering detoxification generally report sleep disturbances. In one study, all patients showed poor sleep efficiency (range of sleep efficiency 76–91%), as measured by actigraphy during acute withdrawal [24], a value previously measured to 94% in non-dependent participants [39]. The cut-off value for sleep efficiency has been recommended to be set to 92% [39]. In our study, poor sleep efficiency was also seen, with mean values of 72–81% in both treatment groups during the first and second nights (Table 3), despite symptomatic withdrawal treatment with oxazepam. Patients in both groups had a lower mean sleep efficiency the second night compared to the first night. This could be related to increasing symptoms of alcohol withdrawal the first two days of detoxification.

Somewhat surprisingly, the self-reported number of hours of sleep and actigraphy recorded sleep in both treatment groups correlated well. As many as 1/3 of the total patient group estimated their sleep duration within ± 10% of the actigraphy-recorded sleep duration the first night. This decreased to 1/5 the second night. Hence, actigraphy could be of importance for the accuracy of clinical sleep data in these patients in a longer period. We did not perform any further analyses on subgroups, e.g. based on PEth concentrations or self-reported alcohol intake, since the group sizes then would be too small.

This study has some limitations, but also some strengths. One of the strengths is that all 40 patients completed the 24-hour actigraphy recording, and as many as 38 of the 40 completed the full 3-day recording. Moreover, we have used the same methods and analyses as previous actigraphy studies on motor activity in psychiatric disorders, making the data directly comparable [27, 28].

No specific power calculation was performed for this study. The primary power calculation for the size of the clinical sample included in this study was based on the principal outcome in the main study published previously [19], to reveal a clinically relevant difference in oxazepam dose required between the oxytocin group and the placebo group during a three-day period of alcohol detoxification. In contrast, the present study had a pure exploratory aim, to evaluate whether actigraphy could be used as a tool to register symptoms of alcohol withdrawal syndrome during detoxification. Therefore, we consider it not relevant to perform a secondary power analysis for this study. Although it would have been possible to perform a separate power analysis for the comparison with the healthy volunteers, no previous information was available to determine the input data needed for a reliable analysis.

Among the limitations are that the five-hour sequences chosen to detect any changes in activity following the oxytocin nasal spray administration [12] might have caused some interesting activity and sleep data outside these periods to be lost. However, we consider this limitation to be accounted for by analyzing a full 24-hour period day two. We did not examine associations with caffeine use during detoxification, as these data were not available. Caffeine affects sleep in general [40, 41], although conflicting evidence exists on its influence on sleep during alcohol detoxification [24].

We did not investigate self-reported sleep or state of mood in the period prior to detoxification; therefore, we could not evaluate whether there was a sudden change in sleep or mood pattern. A previous trial on alcohol withdrawal and sleep in institutional detoxification [24] showed that poor sleep quality and insomnia were common in these patients, also prior to admission. The authors of that article discussed whether these symptoms were caused by a high alcohol intake or previous anxiety and/or depression, or if the mood alterations could be caused by insomnia [24].

Finally, it may be a weakness in the present study that we do not have any information on whether the dominant versus non-dominant wrist was chosen for actigraphy in the healthy controls. However, as discussed in previous trials[42], this factor should not be of importance for the principal results.

Conclusion

Intranasal oxytocin did not affect actigraphy-recorded motor activity or actigraphy-derived sleep parameters in patients with acute alcohol withdrawal. Actigraphy does not seem to add information that can be used to evaluate the degree of withdrawal symptoms in the acute phase of alcohol detoxification, but further research is warranted to investigate whether in can provide useful information e.g. about sleep disturbances in the acute and protracted withdrawal period. During alcohol detoxification, patients have a motor activity pattern clearly different from that in healthy controls.

CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlation between clinical variables related to alcohol intake and withdrawal, and actigraphy recordings of motor activity in patients with alcohol use disorder in a 24-hour period on day 2 during detoxification from alcohol.

Panel A. In 20 patients receiving placebo. Panel B. In 20 patients receiving oxytocin.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlation between clinical variables related to alcohol intake and withdrawal, and actigraphy recordings of sleep variables in patients with alcohol use disorder in the second night during detoxification from alcohol.

Panel A. In 20 patients receiving placebo. Panel B. In 20 patients receiving oxytocin.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Number of subjects with alcohol use disorder overestimating, accurately estimating and underestimating their sleep duration in relation to actigraphy-recorded sleep during the first and second nights of acute detoxification.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-23454

Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms Melby,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been assessed by two reviewers, their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised some major concerns which need attention in a revision. The reviewers feel that the rationale for investigating sleep in this population should be further articulated and justified, and they recommend further discussion of how the study relates to earlier published work reporting the use of oxytocin on alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The reviewers note that the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be reported in greater detail and they raise questions about the sample size calculation.

Please carefully revise the manuscript to address the reviewers’ concerns.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Iratxe Puebla

Senior Managing Editor, PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement: The randomized controlled trial was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (2016/45) and the Norwegian Medical Agency (2015-004463-37) and is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02903251). It was also approved by the User Council at the addiction treatment center. The use of healthy individuals was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee in a separate application (2011/1668). All patients and controls gave their informed written consent prior to inclusion in the study.

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

4. Thank you for submitting your manuscript for consideration by PLOS ONE.

We note that your study is closely related to the following publications, on which you are an author:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.003

Please cite and discuss the above study in the introduction and discussion sections of your manuscript, clarifying how the present work is related to the previously published paper.

Please note that our second publication criterion states that "If a submitted study replicates or is very similar to previous work, authors must provide a sound scientific rationale for the submitted work and clearly reference and discuss the existing literature. Submissions that replicate or are derivative of existing work will likely be rejected if authors do not provide adequate justification." http://www.plosone.org/static/publication.action#results.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

5. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

6.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study could potentially present valuable data that could add to the literature in a meaningful way, however, I think the authors need to refine their presentation of this data to create a more logical rationale for investigating sleep in alcohol withdrawal in the context of an OT clinical trial. I have 3 major comments on this manuscript:

1 What is the rationale for expecting OT to affect actigraphy and sleep related outcome measures?

2 A more rational approach would be for Part 1 to establish group differences (AUD vs controls) in actigraphy/ sleep outcomes. Then look for an effect of OT on these outcomes in AUD patients in withdrawal with a rationale to do so. That is, there any evidence that OT affects motor activity or sleep (there is some literature on this).

3 This seems a lost opportunity to report whether this study replicated a previous study on the effect of OT on alcohol withdrawal symptoms, craving and benzo requirement during withdrawal (Pedersen et al. 2013). If it does not have an effect on withdrawal symptoms then why should it have an effect on activity and sleep disturbances related to alcohol withdrawal.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled 'Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin' with the aims to explore whether 1) actigraphy could be used as a tool to register symptoms during detoxification, 2) oxytocin affected actigraphy variables related to motor activity and sleep compared to placebo during detoxification, and 3) actigraphy-recorded motor function during detoxification was different from that in healthy controls.

This is quite an interesting study but the manuscript requires further improvement.

Comments

Abstract

Line 53, the sentence requires revision.

Materials and Methods

Line 96-103, all the details to be labelled using the word inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the controls. What are the characteristics of these subjects i.e. medical history, social history, occupation, psychological (stress, anxiety etc) etc. More information to be provided on type of occupation.

Table 1 requires cosmetic changes. At least one decimal point for the percentages. The symbol % for individual figures to be omitted since it was stated on the left column. There was no alcohol level measurement for the healthy controls. The p value - for the number of subjects to be omitted.

Line 130, for from1. 1 to be spaced from the word from.

Line 189 - 194, these sections to be included in their respective part in the earlier section in Page 8.

Line 195, proper citation for the SPSS including the publisher name to be stated.

There was no consideration of the attrition rates in the sample size calculation to derive the sample size.

Results

Statistical test(s) to be denoted in all the tables.

Line 199-200, the word mean to be stated.

Line 216 & Line 217, p values to be stated.

Table 2, decimal points to be standardized. For standardization, the word mean to be written in all variables.

Table 3, 2 subjects who were not included in the analysis to be denoted in the table footnote. For the title, n=38 to be stated rather than 40. Please ensure all the numbers stated in the figures and tables title are correct.

Line 243. phosphatidylethanol blood, Oxazepam dose to be stated.

Line 250-152, p value to be provided.

Table 4 and Table 5, results to be presented according to oxytocin group, placebo group and overall group.

Table 6, separate group (oxytocin and placebo group) to be presented.

Figure 2, 3, n to be stated.

References to conform with the journal format.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-23454 resubmission: «Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin»

Dear Editor-in-chief,

We are pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of our manuscript “Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin». We appreciate the comments from the two reviewers and the Senior Managing Editor. We have addressed each of the comments as outlined below, with our own response in italics. We have also uploaded one manuscript file where changes are highlighted in yellow, and one without highlighted changes.

We have done our best to adhere to your formatting checklist, including file naming. We have removed the phrase “data not shown”, and all data described are now either presented in detail in the manuscript or available as Supplementary tables.

The full name of the Ethics Committee can be found in the manuscript and in the submission form.

Regarding the availability of individual data from this study. We have now uploaded all data in figshare.com. The DOI will be available after published manuscript. The reason for making data available upon request is that even if data is anonymized, it still contains potentially identifying or sensitive patient information making the patient recognizable to himself/herself, co-patients at the ward, etc., given the small sample size of the trial, the specific time period the study was carried out, and the relatively small total population of Trøndelag county, Norway.

No results from this manuscript has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere. The research protocol was presented as a poster at the The ASAM 48th Annual Conference, April 6-10, 2017, New Orleans, LA, USA and at the 30th ECNP Congress, September 2-5, 2017, Paris, France.

Some other results from this RCT was previously published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence, DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.003. However, this publication did not refer to actigraphy measures, motor activity or sleep, but merely describes the clinical and pharmacological effects of oxytocin in relation to placebo. Actigraphy is a separate field of research, we have included a control group, the research group consists of other people, etc. The results from the current study are therefore best presented as an independent paper.

There are no changes related to the financial disclosure since the first submission.

Reviewer #1 – comments:

1 What is the rationale for expecting OT to affect actigraphy and sleep related outcome measures?

To clarify this issue, changes have been made in Introduction, please cf. the first three paragraphs, which are rewritten.

2 A more rational approach would be for Part 1 to establish group differences (AUD vs controls) in actigraphy/ sleep outcomes. Then look for an effect of OT on these outcomes in AUD patients in withdrawal with a rationale to do so. That is, there any evidence that OT affects motor activity or sleep (there is some literature on this).

We discussed this issue thoroughly before we submitted the first version of the paper, and we have now again considered the possibility of changing the order of the two parts. The reason why we did compare the two treatment groups first, was that the origin of this study was a double-blind RCT where two treatment groups, OT and placebo, were compared. Since no statistically significant differences were found between the groups in any of the outcomes (information that we had to present first, i.e. in Part 1), we could view the patient group as one homogenous group, thereby comparing all patients to healthy controls (Part 2). Doing it the other way around would in our opinion be less logical, because the reader would then not know whether it could be justified or not to compare the whole patient group with the healthy controls, i.e. whether the differences would be caused by the underlying condition or the drug treatment.

3 This seems a lost opportunity to report whether this study replicated a previous study on the effect of OT on alcohol withdrawal symptoms, craving and benzo requirement during withdrawal (Pedersen et al. 2013). If it does not have an effect on withdrawal symptoms then why should it have an effect on activity and sleep disturbances related to alcohol withdrawal.

We realize that we have not been able to clearly convey the rationale behind this study. The pilot study of Pedersen et al. from 2013 showed a remarkable effect in favour of oxytocin in alcohol withdrawal. Such an effect was not seen in our study where we tried to replicate these results. The clinical results from our study are already published (ref. 19 in the present article). We have now clarified this issue in paragraph 3 in the Introduction as well as in the very first sentence in the Materials and methods section. In the current study, we wanted to explore further whether actigraphy could give a more precise description of the degree of withdrawal symptoms. We also wanted to see whether actigraphy could give more information about the effects of oxytocin, effects that we were not able to reveal in the first study, as we had the idea that actigraphy provides a more accurate and objective measure to motor activity and sleep, than self-reported symptoms do. We have made numerous changes in the manuscript to better describe this rationale.

Reviewer #2 – comments:

• Inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the controls. What are the characteristics of these subjects i.e. medical history, social history, occupation, psychological (stress, anxiety etc) etc. More information to be provided on type of occupation.

o The inclusion and exclusion criteria are now described. Moreover, table 1 now contains all relevant information available for the control group as well as the patients.

• Table 1 requires cosmetic changes. At least one decimal point for the percentages. The symbol % for individual figures to be omitted since it was stated on the left column. There was no alcohol level measurement for the healthy controls. The p value - for the number of subjects to be omitted.

o Table 1 is revised as suggested.

• There was no consideration of the attrition rates in the sample size calculation to derive the sample size.

o The power calculation is now included in the Materials and methods section. Attrition rates can now be calculated based on the numbers given (32 patients requested, 40 included). In the Discussion section, we comment on the relevance of the power calculation performed in relation to the present study with focus on actigraphy data.

Results

• Table 2, decimal points to be standardized. For standardization, the word mean to be written in all variables.

o The numbers of decimals are now standardized in all Tables. The word “mean” is included where appropriate; we have in addition included in the legend to the table that all numbers are means ± SDs.

• Table 3, 2 subjects who were not included in the analysis to be denoted in the table footnote. For the title, n=38 to be stated rather than 40. Please ensure all the numbers stated in the figures and tables title are correct.

o The description of the numbers of patients are corrected as suggested.

• Table 4 and Table 5, results to be presented according to oxytocin group, placebo group and overall group.

o For the information presented in Table 4, group-specific data are presented in S1 Table, panel A (placebo) and B (oxytocin). For the information presented in Table 5, group-specific data are presented in S2 Table, panel A (placebo) and B (oxytocin).

• Table 6, separate group (oxytocin and placebo group) to be presented.

o All separate group data are now included in Table 2.

We appreciate the thorough assessment and comments of our manuscript from the reviewers and the Senior Managing Editor, and hope that you will find our revision satisfactorily.

We look forward to hearing from you again.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-23454R1

Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms Melby,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please address minor comments.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shahrad Taheri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Authors have put in great effort to address the comments.

Minor comment(s)

Line 175, the symbol > and < for the power and alpha to be replaced with symbol = and the sentence to be rephrased.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Jan 2020

Editor-in-chief

PLOS ONE

Trondheim, Norway, January 16th, 2020

PONE-D-19-23454R1 resubmission: «Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin»

Dear Editor-in-chief,

We are pleased to resubmit for publication the second revised version of our manuscript “Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin». We appreciate the minor comment from the reviewer. We have addressed the comment as outlined below and changed the revised manuscript accordingly. We have also uploaded one manuscript file where changes are made with track changes, and one without changes.

There are no changes related to the financial disclosure since the first submission.

Comment from Reviewer #2:

Authors have put in great effort to address the comments.

Minor comment(s):

Line 175, the symbol > and < for the power and alpha to be replaced with symbol = and the sentence to be rephrased.

Reply:

We once again appreciate the thorough assessment of our manuscript from the reviewers and the Senior Managing Editor. We have rewritten the part describing the power analysis as suggested be the reviewer.

We hope that you will find our revision satisfactorily and look forward to hearing from you again.

Please address all correspondence to:

Katrine Melby, MD

Department of Clinical Pharmacology,

St. Olav University Hospital

P.O. Box 3250,

N-7006 Trondheim, Norway

Phone: + 47 92 88 66 39/ Fax: + 47 72 82 91 12

E-mail: katrine.melby@stolav.no

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of the authors,

Katrine Melby

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jan 2020

Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin

PONE-D-19-23454R2

Dear Dr. Melby,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Shahrad Taheri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

3 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-23454R2

Actigraphy assessment of motor activity and sleep in patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and the effects of intranasal oxytocin

Dear Dr. Melby:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shahrad Taheri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE