Dataset Information

Trajectories of depression severity in clinical trials of duloxetine: insights into antidepressant and placebo responses.

ABSTRACT: The high percentage of failed clinical trials in depression may be due to high placebo response rates and the failure of standard statistical approaches to capture heterogeneity in treatment response.To assess whether growth mixture modeling can provide insights into antidepressant and placebo responses in clinical trials of patients with major depression.We reanalyzed clinical trials of duloxetine to identify distinct trajectories of Hamilton Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores during treatment. We analyzed the trajectories in the entire sample and then separately in all active arms and in all placebo arms. Effects of duloxetine hydrochloride, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and covariates on the probability of following a particular trajectory were assessed. Outcomes in different trajectories were compared using mixed-effects models.Seven randomized double-blind clinical trials of duloxetine vs placebo and comparator SSRI. Patients A total of 2515 patients with major depression.Duloxetine and comparator SSRI. Main Outcome Measure Total score on the HAM-D.In the entire sample and in the antidepressant-treated subsample, we identified trajectories of responders (76.3% of the sample) and nonresponders (23.7% of the sample). However, placebo-treated patients were characterized by a single response trajectory. Duloxetine and SSRI did not differ in efficacy, and compared with placebo they significantly decreased the odds of following the nonresponder trajectory. Antidepressant responders had significantly better HAM-D scores over time than placebo-treated patients, but antidepressant nonresponders had significantly worse HAM-D scores over time than the placebo-treated patients.Most patients treated with serotonergic antidepressants showed a clinical trajectory over time that is superior to that of placebo-treated patients. However, some patients receiving these medications did more poorly than patients receiving placebo. These data highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring of medication risks and benefits during serotonergic antidepressant treatment. They should further stimulate the search for biomarkers or other predictors of responder status in guiding antidepressant treatment.

SUBMITTER: Gueorguieva R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3339151 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trajectories of depression severity in clinical trials of duloxetine: insights into antidepressant and placebo responses.

Gueorguieva Ralitza R Mallinckrodt Craig C Krystal John H JH

Archives of general psychiatry 20111201 12

<h4>Context</h4>The high percentage of failed clinical trials in depression may be due to high placebo response rates and the failure of standard statistical approaches to capture heterogeneity in treatment response.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether growth mixture modeling can provide insights into antidepressant and placebo responses in clinical trials of patients with major depression.<h4>Design</h4>We reanalyzed clinical trials of duloxetine to identify distinct trajectories of Hamilton Sca ...[more]

PMID: 22147842

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient expectancy of therapeutic improvement is a primary mediator of placebo effects in antidepressant clinical trials, but its mechanisms are poorly understood. This study employed a novel antidepressant trial design, with integrated functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to manipulate patient outcome expectancy and examine its neural mediators. METHOD:Twenty-three depressed outpatients, in a randomized controlled trial were assigned to either Open (high outcome expectancy) or Placebo-controlled (low outcome expectancy) treatment with citalopram for eight weeks. fMRI scans were acquired before and after the expectancy manipulation (before medication treatment), while participants performed a masked emotional face task. Focusing on an amygdala region-of-interest (ROI), we tested a model where reduction in amygdala activation mediated outcome expectancy effects on the slope of change in depressive symptoms. RESULTS:Following the manipulation, significant differences between conditions were found in neural activation changes in the amygdala, as well as in superior temporal gyrus, insula, and thalamus. Findings support the proposed mediation model according to which activation in the left amygdala ROI decreased significantly in the Open as opposed to the Placebo-controlled group following randomization (p?=?0.009) for sad vs. neutral face contrast. The reduced left amygdala activation, in turn, was a significant predictor of decreased depressive symptoms during the trial (p?=?0.007), and the mediation model was significant. CONCLUSIONS:Results from this study, the first designed to identify the neural mechanisms of expectancy augmentation in an antidepressant randomized control trial, suggest that therapeutic modulation of amygdala activity may be an important pathway by which patient outcome expectancy influences depressive symptoms. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER:NCT01919216; Trial name: Placebo Effects in the Treatment of Depression: Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01919216.

Project description:High placebo responses have been observed across a wide range of pathologies, severely impacting drug development.To examine neurochemical mechanisms underlying the formation of placebo effects in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).In this study involving 2 placebo lead-in phases followed by an open antidepressant administration, we performed a single-blinded 2-week crossover randomized clinical trial of 2 identical oral placebos (described as having either active or inactive fast-acting antidepressant-like effects) followed by a 10-week open-label treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or, in some cases, another agent as clinically indicated. The volunteers (35 medication-free patients with MDD at a university health system) were studied with positron emission tomography and the µ-opioid receptor-selective radiotracer [11C]carfentanil after each 1-week inactive and active oral placebo treatment. In addition, 1 mL of isotonic saline was administered intravenously within sight of the volunteer during positron emission tomographic scanning every 4 minutes over 20 minutes only after the 1-week active placebo treatment, with instructions that the compound may be associated with the activation of brain systems involved in mood improvement. This challenge stimulus was used to test the individual capacity to acutely activate endogenous opioid neurotransmision under expectations of antidepressant effect.Changes in depressive symptoms in response to active placebo and antidepressant. Baseline and activation measures of µ-opioid receptor binding.Higher baseline µ-opioid receptor binding in the nucleus accumbens was associated with better response to antidepressant treatment (r?=?0.48; P?=?.02). Reductions in depressive symptoms after 1 week of active placebo treatment, compared with the inactive, were associated with increased placebo-induced µ-opioid neurotransmission in a network of regions implicated in emotion, stress regulation, and the pathophysiology of MDD, namely, the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, nucleus accumbens, midline thalamus, and amygdala (nucleus accumbens: r?=?0.6; P?<?.001). Placebo-induced endogenous opioid release in these regions was associated with better antidepressant treatment response, predicting 43% of the variance in symptom improvement at the end of the antidepressant trial.These data demonstrate that placebo-induced activation of the µ-opioid system is implicated in the formation of placebo antidepressant effects in patients with MDD and also participate in antidepressant responses, conferring illness resiliency, during open administration.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT02178696.

Project description:The increasing rate of failure of antidepressant clinical trials has led to the assertion that antidepressants do not have meaningful clinical benefits. Our hypothesis was that the decrease in antidepressant-placebo differences in antidepressant clinical trials over the past three decades could be explained by changes in research design features rather than a lack of potency of the antidepressants being tested. We collected data from 130 double blind placebo controlled antidepressant clinical trials conducted between 1981 and 2008 that included 35,122 depressed patients with 23,157 patients assigned to antidepressants and 11,965 assigned to placebo. We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis of change in HAM-D scores in antidepressant and placebo groups separately with year of publication, and research design features as independent variables. We found that antidepressant-placebo differences in antidepressant clinical trials have declined markedly over the past three decades. Decline in change scores in the antidepressant group was related to mean total baseline HAM-D scores in the trial, the version of HAM-D used, and duration of trial. Similarly, decline in change scores in the placebo group was related to mean total baseline HAM-D scores, duration of trial, and year of publication. Overall, we found that antidepressant-placebo differences were statistically significantly higher in trials that used HAM-D 21 rather than HAM-D 17 and in trials that lasted 6 weeks or less. These data suggest that, apart from the efficacy of the antidepressant being tested, factors such as baseline HAM-D scores, version of HAM-D used and duration of trial have a significant impact on outcome. As such a clinician's assessment of the usefulness of antidepressants should not be based solely on the results of such clinical trials. In the meantime there is a need for continuing research to improve the methodology of antidepressant clinical trials. These data suggest that many aspects of the design of antidepressant trials have a significant impact on outcome. Further, these data suggest that the results of more recent placebo controlled trials do not adequately inform clinicians about the potential utility of antidepressants.

Project description:BackgroundThe issue of unblinded outcome-assessors and patients has repeatedly been stressed as a flaw in allegedly double-blind antidepressant trials. Unblinding bias can for example result from a drug's marked side effects. If such unblinding bias is present for a given drug, then it might be expected that the placebos of that drug are rated significantly less effective than that of other antidepressants.MethodsTo test this hypothesis, the present exploratory analysis conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of 19 different placebos in placebo-controlled trials provided in the dataset by Cipriani et al. (Lancet 2018; 391: 1357-66). Primary outcome was efficacy (continuous) estimated on the standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and defined as the pre-post change on the Hamilton Depression scale (HAMD-17), on which information was available in N =?258 trials.ResultsComparative placebo ranking suggested mirtazapine-placebo (SMD -2.0 [-?5.0-1.0 95% CrI]) to be the most, and amitriptyline- (SMD 1.2 [-?1.6-3.9 95% CrI]) and trazodone- (SMD 2.1 [-?0.9-5.2 95% CrI]) placebos to be the least effective placebos. Other placebos suggested to be more effective than amitriptyline- and trazodone-placebos (based on 95% CrIs excluding zero) were citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine placebos. These NMA results were corroborated by the observation that the relative efficacy between drug and placebo was considerably larger for amitriptyline and trazodone than for instance mirtazapine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine, supported by a small and insignificant correlation between drug-efficacy and placebo-efficacy (r?=?-?0.202, p =?0.408).DiscussionThe present exploratory NMA indicates that distinguishable side effects of older drugs may unblind outcome-assessors thus resulting in overestimation of the average drug-placebo difference and underrating bias in placebo-arms, particularly for the older antidepressant drugs amitriptyline and trazodone. If confirmed in prospective studies, these findings suggest that efficacy rankings for antidepressants are susceptible to bias and should be considered unreliable or misleading. The analysis is limited by the focus on the single-comparison placebos (76%, i.e., placebos assessed in two-arm trials), since double-comparison placebos (25%, i.e., placebos assessed in three-arm trials) are hard to interpret and therefore not included in the present interpretation. Another limitation is the problem of multiplicity, which was only approximately accounted for in the Bayesian NMA by modelling treatment effects as exchangeable.

Project description:Purpose/backgroundHeterogeneity has been documented in trajectories of symptom change during antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). It is unclear whether distinct trajectories of change exist for functioning during antidepressant treatment.Methods/proceduresThis analysis explored distinct trajectories of functioning in MDD and tested whether they corresponded to trajectories of symptom change. Data were from 4317 patients and were pooled from 9 randomized placebo-controlled trials. Growth mixture modeling was used to identify trajectories of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) for placebo- and desvenlafaxine-treated patients.Findings/resultsThree trajectories were identified for symptoms (HRSD) in patients receiving placebo (mean reduction baseline to week 8, -18.4 [most favorable] to -2.6 points [least favorable]). Four HRSD trajectories were identified for patients receiving desvenlafaxine (mean reduction from baseline to week 8, -17.2 [most favorable] to -2.6 points [least favorable]). Four trajectories were identified for functioning (SDS) in patients receiving placebo (mean reduction baseline to week 8, -13.6 [most favorable] to -0.8 points [least favorable]), and 3 for desvenlafaxine (-12.8 to -1.4 points, respectively). Percentages of agreement between most favorable HRSD and SDS trajectories were 75% (placebo) and 85% (desvenlafaxine), and for least favorable trajectories were 88% (placebo) and 80% (desvenlafaxine).Implications/conclusionsDistinct trajectories of change based on symptoms and functioning were identified among patients with MDD receiving desvenlafaxine and among patients with MDD receiving placebo. Differentiating subpopulations of patients has the potential to provide a more personalized treatment of patients with MDD.ClinicalTrials.govIdentifiers: NCT00072774; NCT00277823; NCT00300378; NCT00384033; NCT00798707; NCT00863798; NCT01121484; NCT00824291; NCT01432457.

Project description:CONTEXT:Antidepressant medications represent the best established treatment for major depressive disorder, but there is little evidence that they have a specific pharmacological effect relative to pill placebo for patients with less severe depression. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the relative benefit of medication vs placebo across a wide range of initial symptom severity in patients diagnosed with depression. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1980 through March 2009, along with references from meta-analyses and reviews. STUDY SELECTION:Randomized placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of major or minor depressive disorder were selected. Studies were included if their authors provided the requisite original data, they comprised adult outpatients, they included a medication vs placebo comparison for at least 6 weeks, they did not exclude patients on the basis of a placebo washout period, and they used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Data from 6 studies (718 patients) were included. DATA EXTRACTION:Individual patient-level data were obtained from study authors. RESULTS:Medication vs placebo differences varied substantially as a function of baseline severity. Among patients with HDRS scores below 23, Cohen d effect sizes for the difference between medication and placebo were estimated to be less than 0.20 (a standard definition of a small effect). Estimates of the magnitude of the superiority of medication over placebo increased with increases in baseline depression severity and crossed the threshold defined by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for a clinically significant difference at a baseline HDRS score of 25. CONCLUSIONS:The magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms. For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial.

Dataset Information

Trajectories of depression severity in clinical trials of duloxetine: insights into antidepressant and placebo responses.

Publications

Trajectories of depression severity in clinical trials of duloxetine: insights into antidepressant and placebo responses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure