<clinical_study>
  <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
  <required_header>
    <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
    <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
    <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04467502</url>
  </required_header>
  <id_info>
    <org_study_id>2020_02</org_study_id>
    <secondary_id>2020-A02710-39</secondary_id>
    <nct_id>NCT04467502</nct_id>
  </id_info>
  <brief_title>Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Gambling Disorder</brief_title>
  <acronym>VIRET-GAD</acronym>
  <official_title>Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Gambling Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial</official_title>
  <sponsors>
    <lead_sponsor>
      <agency>University Hospital, Lille</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </lead_sponsor>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>Ministry of Health, France</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
  </sponsors>
  <source>University Hospital, Lille</source>
  <oversight_info>
    <has_dmc>No</has_dmc>
    <is_fda_regulated_drug>No</is_fda_regulated_drug>
    <is_fda_regulated_device>No</is_fda_regulated_device>
  </oversight_info>
  <brief_summary>
    <textblock>
      Gambling disorder (GD) is recognized as an addictive disorder in the DSM-5. Craving is a core&#xD;
      phenomenon in addiction that can lead to relapse in problem gambling for pathological&#xD;
      gamblers. Exposure Therapy (ET) focuses on craving in addiction treatment. ET in&#xD;
      Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is based on classical conditioning that addresses the&#xD;
      association between contextual cues and the craving response. ET helps the patient to reduce&#xD;
      craving when faced with cues triggering craving. ET includes in vivo exposure and imaginal&#xD;
      exposure. The literature recommends being as close as possible to the context of addiction to&#xD;
      facilitate the extinction of craving but in vivo ET is complicated to perform. For GD, in&#xD;
      outpatient consultation, bringing a patient to a casino presents obstacles (e.g., time, human&#xD;
      and financial cost, agreement with casino for therapy).&#xD;
&#xD;
      The study will be to assess the effectiveness of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) in a&#xD;
      virtual gambling environment. Various trials show that VRET is no more or less effective than&#xD;
      classical ET in CBT but has other advantages for motivation to treatment. This research aims&#xD;
      to compare efficacy between CBT with VRET and CBT with imaginal exposure for treatment of GD&#xD;
      in a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </brief_summary>
  <detailed_description>
    <textblock>
      Main aim:&#xD;
&#xD;
      Show, within patients seeking care for GD, that VRET integrated with CBT is non-inferior to&#xD;
      imaginal ET integrated with CBT on GD symptom reduction at the end of 12 treatment sessions.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Secondary objectives:&#xD;
&#xD;
        1. Show that VRET integrated with CBT is non-inferior to imaginal ET integrated with CBT on&#xD;
           GD symptom reduction during the first 12 months post-treatment.&#xD;
&#xD;
        2. Compare the effect of the two therapeutic strategies on GD symptoms (measured by&#xD;
           complementary assessments to that used in the main aim), at the end of treatment and&#xD;
           during the first 12 months post-treatment.&#xD;
&#xD;
        3. Show the efficacy of VRET integrated with CBT compared to imaginal ET integrated with&#xD;
           CBT on gambling behavior, craving, and gambling-related cognitions at the end of&#xD;
           treatment and during the first 12 months post-treatment.&#xD;
&#xD;
        4. Show the efficacy of VRET integrated with CBT compared to imaginal ET integrated with&#xD;
           CBT on the evolution of anxiety and depressive symptoms at the end of treatment and&#xD;
           during the first 12 months post-treatment.&#xD;
&#xD;
        5. Compare the quality of the two therapeutic strategies at the end of treatment.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </detailed_description>
  <overall_status>Not yet recruiting</overall_status>
  <start_date type="Anticipated">January 2023</start_date>
  <completion_date type="Anticipated">July 2026</completion_date>
  <primary_completion_date type="Anticipated">July 2026</primary_completion_date>
  <phase>N/A</phase>
  <study_type>Interventional</study_type>
  <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
  <study_design_info>
    <allocation>Randomized</allocation>
    <intervention_model>Parallel Assignment</intervention_model>
    <primary_purpose>Other</primary_purpose>
    <masking>None (Open Label)</masking>
  </study_design_info>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) between baseline and end of treatment (12 sessions, 6 months)</measure>
    <time_frame>at the end of treatment (an average of 6 months)</time_frame>
    <description>The SOGS is a 20-item instrument used to screen for pathological gambling. The SOGS is scored by summing the number of items endorsed out of 20 and a cut score of 5 or more indicates a probable pathological gambling. The score ranges from 0 to 20.</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) between baseline and follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months after the end of treatment</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
    <description>The SOGS is a 20-item instrument used to screen for pathological gambling. The SOGS is scored by summing the number of items endorsed out of 20 and a cut score of 5 or more indicates a probable pathological gambling. The score ranges from 0 to 20.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in gambling disorder symptoms between baseline, end of treatment and follow-up assessed by the following criteria: number of DSM-5 criteria for GD</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
    <description>Nine criteria for gambling disorder are described in DSM-5. The endorsement of 4-5 criteria means the presence of a mild gambling disorder, 6-7 criteria a moderate gambling disorder and 8-9 criteria a severe gambling disorder. The score ranges from 0 to 9 criteria.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in gambling disorder symptoms between baseline, end of treatment and follow-up assessed by the following criteria: Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
    <description>The PGSI consists of nine items to assess level of risk for problem gambling. Cut-off scores are 1-2 for low-risk gamblers, 3-7 for moderate-risk gamblers and 8 or more for problem-gamblers. Non-problem gamblers correspond to 0. The score ranges from 0 to 27.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in gambling behavior assessed by gambling frequency during the last month</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in gambling behavior assessed by amount of money spent in gambling during the last month</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in gambling behavior assessed by time spent gambling during the last month</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in frequency subscale of gambling Craving Experience Questionnaire (g-CEQ)</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
    <description>The frequency subscale of gambling Craving Experience Questionnaire assesses the frequency of craving for gambling during the last week. This questionnaire consists of nine items. A high score means a high frequency of craving during the last week. The score ranges from 0 to 90.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in craving reactivity to gambling cues</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Number of craving episodes using daily craving assessed by participants</measure>
    <time_frame>up to 6 months during the treatment</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Cumulative duration of craving episodes using daily craving assessed by participants</measure>
    <time_frame>up to 6 months during the treatment</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in gambling-related cognitions assessed by Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS)</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
    <description>The French version of the Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale consists of 23 items to assess various cognitions related to gambling. A high score means that gambling-related cognitions are typical cognitions of problem gamblers. The score ranges from 23 to 161.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in depressive symptoms assessed by Beck Depression Inventory short-form (BDI-SF)</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
    <description>Beck Depression Inventory short-form consists of 13 items to assess depressive symptoms. A high score means a high level of depressive symptoms. The score ranges from 0 to 39.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in anxiety symptoms assessed by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)</measure>
    <time_frame>at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months</time_frame>
    <description>State-Trait Anxiety Inventory consists of 20 items to assess state-anxiety and 20 items to assess trait-anxiety. A high score means a high level of anxiety symptoms. The score ranges from 20 to 80 both for state-anxiety and trait-anxiety.</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Rate of patients who attended the 12 sessions (6 months)</measure>
    <time_frame>up to 6 months during the treatment</time_frame>
    <description>Quality of the two therapeutic strategies</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <number_of_arms>2</number_of_arms>
  <enrollment type="Anticipated">124</enrollment>
  <condition>Gambling Disorder</condition>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>CBT with VRET</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Experimental</arm_group_type>
  </arm_group>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>CBT with imaginal ET</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
  </arm_group>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Other</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>cognitive-behavioral therapy for gambling disorder</intervention_name>
    <description>6 sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy for gambling disorder</description>
    <arm_group_label>CBT with VRET</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_label>CBT with imaginal ET</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Other</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>imaginal exposure therapy focus on gambling cues</intervention_name>
    <description>6 sessions of imaginal exposure therapy focus on gambling cues</description>
    <arm_group_label>CBT with imaginal ET</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Other</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>virtual reality exposure therapy focus on gambling cues</intervention_name>
    <description>6 sessions of virtual reality exposure therapy focus on gambling cues</description>
    <arm_group_label>CBT with VRET</arm_group_label>
  </intervention>
  <eligibility>
    <criteria>
      <textblock>
        Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Seek treatment for GD within one of health care facilities participating in the&#xD;
             research (first request for treatment and not patients already receiving treatment for&#xD;
             gambling disorder in the care center).&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Meet a current diagnosis of gambling disorder according to DSM-5 criteria and with a&#xD;
             South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) score ≥ 5&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Meet a casino gambling behavior with a casino gambling frequency ≥ 1 time every two&#xD;
             months during the last 12 months&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Have a sufficient understanding of French for therapy&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Beneficiary of the French social security system&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Give an informed consent to participate&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Willing to comply with all study procedures and duration&#xD;
&#xD;
        Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Visual disturbance making impossible the use of virtual reality equipment (e.g.&#xD;
             advanced retinal degeneration, central scotoma, age-related macular degeneration)&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Pregnant woman&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Minor or adult under guardianship, conservatorship, under judicial protection, persons&#xD;
             deprived of their liberty&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Balance disorder (e.g. cerebellar disorder, inner ear disorder)&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Photosensitive epilepsy&#xD;
&#xD;
          -  Refusal to participate&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </criteria>
    <gender>All</gender>
    <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
    <maximum_age>N/A</maximum_age>
    <healthy_volunteers>No</healthy_volunteers>
  </eligibility>
  <overall_official>
    <last_name>Pierre TAQUET, PhD</last_name>
    <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    <affiliation>University Hospital, Lille</affiliation>
  </overall_official>
  <overall_contact>
    <last_name>Pierre TAQUET, PhD</last_name>
    <phone>0320445838</phone>
    <phone_ext>+33</phone_ext>
    <email>pierre.taquet@chru-lille.fr</email>
  </overall_contact>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CHU Amiens-Picardie</name>
      <address>
        <city>Amiens</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Alain DERVAUX, MD,PhD</last_name>
      <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CH Boulogne sur mer CSAPA</name>
      <address>
        <city>Boulogne-sur-Mer</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Fréderic TEISSIERE, MD</last_name>
      <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CHU de Caen</name>
      <address>
        <city>Caen</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Nicolas CABE, MD</last_name>
      <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>Hôpital Fontan, CHU lille</name>
      <address>
        <city>Lille</city>
        <zip>59000</zip>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Olivier COTTENCIN, MD,PhD</last_name>
      <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>Assoriation Cédragir Lomme CSAPA</name>
      <address>
        <city>Lomme</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Stéphanie Lienard</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CH de l'arrondissement de Montreuil / CSAPA</name>
      <address>
        <city>Montreuil sur Mer</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Mathieu LAWNICZAK</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CHU Rouen</name>
      <address>
        <city>Rouen</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Olivier GUILLIN, MD, PhD</last_name>
      <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CH de Saint Amand les Eaux</name>
      <address>
        <city>Saint-Amand-les-Eaux</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Charles LESCUT, MD</last_name>
      <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CH Seclin Carvin CSAPA</name>
      <address>
        <city>Seclin</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Pierre TAQUET, PhD</last_name>
      <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>Association GREID ValenciennesCSAPA</name>
      <address>
        <city>Valenciennes</city>
        <country>France</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
    <investigator>
      <last_name>Ines Roux</last_name>
      <role>Sub-Investigator</role>
    </investigator>
  </location>
  <location_countries>
    <country>France</country>
  </location_countries>
  <verification_date>May 2022</verification_date>
  <study_first_submitted>June 29, 2020</study_first_submitted>
  <study_first_submitted_qc>July 8, 2020</study_first_submitted_qc>
  <study_first_posted type="Actual">July 13, 2020</study_first_posted>
  <last_update_submitted>May 17, 2022</last_update_submitted>
  <last_update_submitted_qc>May 17, 2022</last_update_submitted_qc>
  <last_update_posted type="Actual">May 18, 2022</last_update_posted>
  <responsible_party>
    <responsible_party_type>Sponsor</responsible_party_type>
  </responsible_party>
  <keyword>Exposure therapy</keyword>
  <keyword>virtual reality</keyword>
  <keyword>cognitive behavioral therapy</keyword>
  <keyword>pathological gambling</keyword>
  <keyword>CBT</keyword>
  <condition_browse>
    <!-- CAUTION:  The following MeSH terms are assigned with an imperfect algorithm            -->
    <mesh_term>Gambling</mesh_term>
  </condition_browse>
  <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
</clinical_study>


download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04467502
org study id: 2020_02
secondary id: 2020-A02710-39
nct id: NCT04467502
lead sponsor: 
collaborator: 
has dmc: No
is fda regulated drug: No
is fda regulated device: No
Gambling disorder (GD) is recognized as an addictive disorder in the DSM-5. Craving is a core
      phenomenon in addiction that can lead to relapse in problem gambling for pathological
      gamblers. Exposure Therapy (ET) focuses on craving in addiction treatment. ET in
      Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is based on classical conditioning that addresses the
      association between contextual cues and the craving response. ET helps the patient to reduce
      craving when faced with cues triggering craving. ET includes in vivo exposure and imaginal
      exposure. The literature recommends being as close as possible to the context of addiction to
      facilitate the extinction of craving but in vivo ET is complicated to perform. For GD, in
      outpatient consultation, bringing a patient to a casino presents obstacles (e.g., time, human
      and financial cost, agreement with casino for therapy).

      The study will be to assess the effectiveness of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) in a
      virtual gambling environment. Various trials show that VRET is no more or less effective than
      classical ET in CBT but has other advantages for motivation to treatment. This research aims
      to compare efficacy between CBT with VRET and CBT with imaginal exposure for treatment of GD
      in a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial.
Main aim:

      Show, within patients seeking care for GD, that VRET integrated with CBT is non-inferior to
      imaginal ET integrated with CBT on GD symptom reduction at the end of 12 treatment sessions.

      Secondary objectives:

        1. Show that VRET integrated with CBT is non-inferior to imaginal ET integrated with CBT on
           GD symptom reduction during the first 12 months post-treatment.

        2. Compare the effect of the two therapeutic strategies on GD symptoms (measured by
           complementary assessments to that used in the main aim), at the end of treatment and
           during the first 12 months post-treatment.

        3. Show the efficacy of VRET integrated with CBT compared to imaginal ET integrated with
           CBT on gambling behavior, craving, and gambling-related cognitions at the end of
           treatment and during the first 12 months post-treatment.

        4. Show the efficacy of VRET integrated with CBT compared to imaginal ET integrated with
           CBT on the evolution of anxiety and depressive symptoms at the end of treatment and
           during the first 12 months post-treatment.

        5. Compare the quality of the two therapeutic strategies at the end of treatment.
allocation: Randomized
intervention model: Parallel Assignment
primary purpose: Other
masking: None (Open Label)
measure: Change in South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) between baseline and end of treatment (12 sessions, 6 months)
time frame: at the end of treatment (an average of 6 months)
description: The SOGS is a 20-item instrument used to screen for pathological gambling. The SOGS is scored by summing the number of items endorsed out of 20 and a cut score of 5 or more indicates a probable pathological gambling. The score ranges from 0 to 20.
measure: Change in South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) between baseline and follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months after the end of treatment
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
description: The SOGS is a 20-item instrument used to screen for pathological gambling. The SOGS is scored by summing the number of items endorsed out of 20 and a cut score of 5 or more indicates a probable pathological gambling. The score ranges from 0 to 20.
measure: Change in gambling disorder symptoms between baseline, end of treatment and follow-up assessed by the following criteria: number of DSM-5 criteria for GD
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
description: Nine criteria for gambling disorder are described in DSM-5. The endorsement of 4-5 criteria means the presence of a mild gambling disorder, 6-7 criteria a moderate gambling disorder and 8-9 criteria a severe gambling disorder. The score ranges from 0 to 9 criteria.
measure: Change in gambling disorder symptoms between baseline, end of treatment and follow-up assessed by the following criteria: Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
description: The PGSI consists of nine items to assess level of risk for problem gambling. Cut-off scores are 1-2 for low-risk gamblers, 3-7 for moderate-risk gamblers and 8 or more for problem-gamblers. Non-problem gamblers correspond to 0. The score ranges from 0 to 27.
measure: Change in gambling behavior assessed by gambling frequency during the last month
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
measure: Change in gambling behavior assessed by amount of money spent in gambling during the last month
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
measure: Change in gambling behavior assessed by time spent gambling during the last month
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
measure: Change in frequency subscale of gambling Craving Experience Questionnaire (g-CEQ)
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
description: The frequency subscale of gambling Craving Experience Questionnaire assesses the frequency of craving for gambling during the last week. This questionnaire consists of nine items. A high score means a high frequency of craving during the last week. The score ranges from 0 to 90.
measure: Change in craving reactivity to gambling cues
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
measure: Number of craving episodes using daily craving assessed by participants
time frame: up to 6 months during the treatment
measure: Cumulative duration of craving episodes using daily craving assessed by participants
time frame: up to 6 months during the treatment
measure: Change in gambling-related cognitions assessed by Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS)
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
description: The French version of the Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale consists of 23 items to assess various cognitions related to gambling. A high score means that gambling-related cognitions are typical cognitions of problem gamblers. The score ranges from 23 to 161.
measure: Change in depressive symptoms assessed by Beck Depression Inventory short-form (BDI-SF)
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
description: Beck Depression Inventory short-form consists of 13 items to assess depressive symptoms. A high score means a high level of depressive symptoms. The score ranges from 0 to 39.
measure: Change in anxiety symptoms assessed by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
time frame: at baseline, and through study completion, an average of 18 months
description: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory consists of 20 items to assess state-anxiety and 20 items to assess trait-anxiety. A high score means a high level of anxiety symptoms. The score ranges from 20 to 80 both for state-anxiety and trait-anxiety.
measure: Rate of patients who attended the 12 sessions (6 months)
time frame: up to 6 months during the treatment
description: Quality of the two therapeutic strategies
arm group label: CBT with VRET
arm group type: Experimental
arm group label: CBT with imaginal ET
arm group type: Active Comparator
intervention type: Other
intervention name: cognitive-behavioral therapy for gambling disorder
description: 6 sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy for gambling disorder
arm group label: CBT with VRET
arm group label: CBT with imaginal ET
intervention type: Other
intervention name: imaginal exposure therapy focus on gambling cues
description: 6 sessions of imaginal exposure therapy focus on gambling cues
arm group label: CBT with imaginal ET
intervention type: Other
intervention name: virtual reality exposure therapy focus on gambling cues
description: 6 sessions of virtual reality exposure therapy focus on gambling cues
arm group label: CBT with VRET
criteria: 
gender: All
minimum age: 18 Years
maximum age: N/A
healthy volunteers: No
last name: Pierre TAQUET, PhD
role: Principal Investigator
affiliation: University Hospital, Lille
last name: Pierre TAQUET, PhD
phone: 0320445838
phone ext: +33
email: pierre.taquet@chru-lille.fr
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
facility: 
investigator: 
country: France
responsible party type: Sponsor
mesh term: Gambling