A multivantaged behavioural method for measuring onset and sequence of the clinical actions of antidepressants (original) (raw)
Related papers
An ideal trial to test differential onset of antidepressant effect
The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 2001
Although various published clinical studies have suggested that some antidepressants may have a more rapid onset of therapeutic effect than others, none of these trials was adequately designed to measure differential time to onset of effect. Thus, existing data do not support claims that one drug reduces the symptoms of depression faster than another. In this article, we propose a study that would be ideal for measuring comparative onset of antidepressant effect. The key features of this ideal trial include (1) a prospective definition of early onset of action, (2) increased frequency of assessment, (3) a data-analytic approach capable of capturing the dynamic nature of symptomatic change, and (4) various strategies to minimize bias and heterogeneity of response.
Onset of antidepressant action: a pharmacological question?
Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 2005
Objective This study was conducted to analyse the onset of action of antidepressants in naturalistic conditions. Method Multicenter, prospective, open-label, non-comparative naturalistic study among 582 depressed outpatients treated with mirtazapine. The patients were assessed at screening, and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks by the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (17-HAM-D) and clinical global impression (CGI). Onset of action was measured by traditional analyses based on the time to a persistent reduction of more than 50% from baseline on the 17-HAM-D. Patients were grouped into four groups: very fast responders, fast responders, traditional responders and partial or non-responders. The non-parametric Kruskall-Wallis test was used to assess differences between the groups and logistic regression to predict response after 1 week of treatment. Results 16% of patients had a very fast response, 42.1% a fast response, 26.5% a traditional response and 15.5% a partial or non-response. There were no significant differences between these groups with regard to dose of mirtazapine or sociodemographic characteristics. The baseline total 17-HAM-D was lower in the faster groups than in the slower groups. The evolution of 17-HAM-D items was similar in each responder group. Conclusion Time to response varied from early faster response to late slower response. The evolution of 17-HAM-D for each type of response was similar, but occurred at a different time in each group.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 2004
This study was aimed at resolving the time course of clinical action of antidepressants (ADs) and the type of early behavioral changes that precede recovery in treatment-responsive depressed patients. The first goal was to identify, during the first 2 weeks of treatment, the onset of clinical actions of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), paroxetine, and the selective noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor, desipramine (DMI). The second aim was to test the hypothesis that the two pharmacologic subtypes would induce different early behavioral changes in treatment-responsive patients. The design was a randomized, parallel group, placebo-controlled, double-blind study for 6 weeks of treatment following a 1-week washout period. The study utilized measures of the major behavioral components of the depressive disorder as well as overall severity. The results indicated that the onset of clinical actions of DMI ranged from 3 to 13 days, averaged 13 days for paroxetine, and was 16-42 days for placebo. Furthermore, as hypothesized, the different types of ADs initially impacted different behavioral aspects of the disorder. After 1 week of treatment, DMI produced greater reductions in motor retardation and depressed mood than did paroxetine and placebo, and this difference persisted at the second week of treatment. Early improvement in depressed mood-motor retardation differentiated patients who responded to DMI after 6 weeks of treatment from those that did not. Paroxetine initially reduced anxiety more in responders than in nonresponders, and by the second week, significantly improved depressed mood and distressed expression in responders to a greater extent. Depressed patients who responded to placebo showed no consistent early pattern of behavior improvement. Early drug-specific behavioral changes were highly predictive of ultimate clinical response to the different ADs, results that could eventually be applied directly to clinical practice.
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) assessment on efficacy of antidepressants
European Neuropsychopharmacology, 2009
Background: Recent publications have raised questions over the efficacy and clinically relevant effects of antidepressants that have been approved for the treatment of major depression. In this context, the European Commission requested that the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and its scientific committee (CHMP) issue an opinion on these data under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Findings: Results from a recent meta-analysis [Kirsch, I., Deacon, B.J. et al., (2008) Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med. 5(2), e45.] have questioned the clinical relevance of the use of some antidepressants in treating major depression. This analysis focused only on statistically significant mean differences versus placebo in changes in a rating scale (such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale). This, however, would not be an adequate basis for the evaluation of clinical relevance and, from a regulatory perspective, would not be sufficient to grant an antidepressant the approval needed to allow it onto the market. Improvements that are both statistically significant (based on improvements in validated rating scales between baseline and study end) and clinically relevant (based on responder rates) need to be shown in short-term studies. In addition, these short-term results need to be confirmed in a randomised withdrawal study to demonstrate the maintenance of an antidepressant's effects. Conclusions: The CHMP concluded that the approval of antidepressants for the treatment of patients with major depression is based on data that provide robust and sufficient evidence of clinically meaningful benefits for patients with major depression. Therefore, the CHMP is of the opinion that, as no public health concerns have been identified, no regulatory action is necessary on the basis of Kirsch et al.'s findings.
Onset, time course and trajectories of improvement with antidepressants
European Neuropsychopharmacology, 2012
There is still considerable controversy about the onset and time course of improvement with antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Previous studies suggested a delayed-onset hypothesis with therapeutic improvement taking several weeks, but recent metaanalyses have shown support for earlier onset of improvement within the first week or two of treatment. This paper briefly reviews the evidence, focused on antidepressant studies published since 2006, for early onset of improvement within the first 2 weeks of treatment. A PubMed electronic search was conducted with selection of relevant studies from 2007 to March 2012. With the caveat of methodological limitations, results from randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses and naturalistic studies consistently show that: (1) antidepressants in general have early onset of improvement, (2) some antidepressants, including the novel mechanism agent, agomelatine, are associated with early improvement in both core and specific symptoms such as anhedonia and sleep-wake disturbances, and (3) early improvement predicts sustained response and remission. Use of newer statistical methods to examine individual response trajectories may address some of the methodological limitations of previous studies. The predictive value of early improvement has important clinical relevance for antidepressant treatment. Measurement-based assessment for response should occur earlier and more frequently. A lack of improvement (defined as r20% reduction from baseline in scores on a depression rating scale) at 2-3 weeks after initiation of an antidepressant should prompt the clinician to consider a change in management.
Journal of clinical psychopharmacology, 2016
The most commonly used inclusion/exclusion criterion in antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) is a minimum score on a symptom severity scale. In the present study, we reviewed placebo-controlled AETs published during the past 20 years to determine whether there has been a change in the symptom severity inclusion criterion threshold subsequent to publications that highlighted the unrepresentativeness of the depressed patients studied in AETs. We identified 170 AETs published during the past 20 years and compared the studies published during the past 5 years (2010-2104, n = 56) with the studies published during the previous 15 years (n = 114). The symptom severity threshold for inclusion has increased in the more recent cohort of studies. On the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, almost half of the studies of the past 5 years used a cutoff of 22 or greater to select patients versus less than one-fifth of the studies during the previous 15 years (44.0% vs 17.5%; χ = 7.4; P < ...
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 2016
Remission rates for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) are low and unpredictable for any given antidepressant. No biological or clinical marker has demonstrated sufficient ability to match individuals to efficacious treatment. Biosignatures developed from the systematic exploration of multiple biological markers, which optimize treatment selection for individuals (moderators) and provide early indication of ultimate treatment response (mediators) are needed. The rationale and design of a multi-site, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of sertraline examining moderators and mediators of treatment response is described. The target sample is 400 participants with early onset (<30 years) recurrent MDD. Non-responders to an 8-week trial are switched double blind to either bupropion (for sertraline non-responders) or sertraline (for placebo nonresponders) for an additional 8 weeks. Clinical moderators include anxious depression, early trauma, gender, melancholic and atypical depression, anger attacks, Axis II disorder, hypersomnia/ fatigue, and chronicity of depression. Biological moderator and mediators include cerebral cortical thickness, task-based fMRI (reward and emotion conflict), resting connectivity, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), arterial spin labeling (ASL), electroencephalograpy (EEG), cortical evoked potentials, and behavioral/cognitive tasks evaluated at baseline and week 1, except DTI, assessed only at baseline. The study is designed to standardize assessment of biomarkers across multiple sites as well as institute replicable quality control methods, and to use advanced data analytic methods to integrate these markers. A Differential Depression Treatment Response Index (DTRI) will be developed. The data, including biological samples (DNA, RNA, and plasma collected before and during treatment), will become available in a public scientific repository.
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 2012
In the efficacy evaluation of antidepressant treatments, the total score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) is still regarded as the 'gold standard'. We previously had shown that the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) was more sensitive to detect depressive symptom changes than the HAMD17 . Furthermore, studies suggest that the unidimensional subscales of the HAMD, which capture the core depressive symptoms, outperform the full HAMD regarding the detection of antidepressant treatment effects. The aim of the present study was to compare several unidimensional subscales of the HAMD and the IDS regarding their sensitivity to changes in depression symptoms in a sample of patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression (MIND). Biweekly IDS-C28 and HAMD17 data from 287 patients of a 10-week randomised, placebocontrolled trial comparing the effectiveness of sertraline and cognitive-behavioural group therapy in patients with MIND were converted to subscale scores and analysed during the antidepressant treatment course. We investigated sensitivity to depressive change for all scales from assessment-to-assessment, in relation to depression severity level and placebo-verum differences. The subscales performed similarly during the treatment course, with slight advantages for some subscales in detecting treatment effects depending on the treatment modality and on the items included. Most changes in depressive symptomatology were detected by the IDS short scale, but regarding the effect sizes, it performed worse than most subscales. Unidimensional subscales are a time-and cost-saving option in judging drug therapy outcomes, especially in antidepressant treatment efficacy studies. However, subscales do not cover all facets of depression (e.g. atypical symptoms, sleep disturbances), which might be important for comprehensively understanding the nature of the disease depression. Therefore, the cost-to-benefit ratio must be carefully assessed in the decision for using unidimensional subscales.
Psychopharmacology, 1984
A total of 97 patients, who participated in two studies on the relationship between the clinical effect and plasma levels of imipramine and clomipramine, were examined for improvement curves by use of weekly ratings on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HDS). Although we confirmed that our six-item HDS subscale, in contrast to the total 17-item HDS, was a one-dimensional measure of depression, the Rasch analysis showed that the weekly improvement in subscale scores only applied to the individual patient, i.e. an average improvement curve for a group of depressed patients is an abstraction to which the individual curves cannot be transferred. Our results indicate, however, that when the subscale scores are transformed into three clinical categories of depression: no, mild (minor), moderate/-severe (major) they could be described by a common improvement curve for all patients. This is illustrated by the percentage of patients who, week to week, changed from major to minor or no depression, or from minor to no depression. We found no specific improvement pattern for imipramine or clomipramine which could be used diagnostically. There is reason to assume that patients completing a controlled trial necessarily will follow a monotonic improvement curve, and the improvement pattern of all patients fulfilling the entry criteria should, therefore, always be reported. The present study thus indicates that calculation of average improvement curves is neither clinically nor statistically meaningful, and should be replaced by measures of changes in number of patients in different main severity categories, or by the final rating score. No difference in outcome between imipramine and clomipramine was shown neither on the subscale nor on the 17-item HDS.