Dataset Information

Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) can support the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing medical interventions. Conditional power is the probability that updating existing inconclusive evidence in NMA with additional trial(s) will result in conclusive evidence, given assumptions regarding trial design, anticipated effect sizes, or event probabilities.

Methods

The present work aimed to estimate conditional power for potential future trials on antidepressant treatments. Existing evidence was based on a published network of 502 RCTs conducted between 1979-2018 assessing acute antidepressant treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD). Primary outcomes were efficacy in terms of the symptom change on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and tolerability in terms of the dropout rate due to adverse events. The network compares 21 antidepressants consisting of 231 relative treatment comparisons, 164 (efficacy) and 127 (tolerability) of which are currently assumed to have inconclusive evidence.

Results

Required sample sizes to achieve new conclusive evidence with at least 80% conditional power were estimated to range between N = 894 - 4190 (efficacy) and N = 521 - 1246 (tolerability). Otherwise, sample sizes ranging between N = 49 - 485 (efficacy) and N = 40 - 320 (tolerability) may require stopping for futility based on a boundary at 20% conditional power. Optimizing trial designs by considering multiple trials that contribute both direct and indirect evidence, anticipating alternative effect sizes or alternative event probabilities, may increase conditional power but required sample sizes remain high. Antidepressants having the greatest conditional power associated with smallest required sample sizes were identified as those on which current evidence is low, i.e., clomipramine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, nefazodone, and vilazodone, with respect to both outcomes.

Conclusions

The present results suggest that conditional power to achieve new conclusive evidence in ongoing or future trials on antidepressant treatments is low. Limiting the use of the presented conditional power analysis are primarily due to the estimated large sample sizes which would be required in future trials as well as due to the well-known small effect sizes in antidepressant treatments. These findings may inform researchers and decision-makers regarding the clinical relevance and justification of research in ongoing or future antidepressant RCTs in MDD.

SUBMITTER: Holper L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7934491 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.

Holper Lisa L

BMC psychiatry 20210305 1

<h4>Background</h4>Conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) can support the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing medical interventions. Conditional power is the probability that updating existing inconclusive evidence in NMA with additional trial(s) will result in conclusive evidence, given assumptions regarding trial design, anticipated effect sizes, or event probabilities.<h4>Methods</h4>The present work aimed to estimate conditional power for potential future tria ...[more]

PMID: 33673822

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA), a generalization of conventional MA, allows for assessing the relative effectiveness of multiple interventions. Reporting bias is a major threat to the validity of MA and NMA. Numerous methods are available to assess the robustness of MA results to reporting bias. We aimed to extend such methods to NMA.MethodsWe introduced 2 adjustment models for Bayesian NMA. First, we extended a meta-regression model that allows the effect size to depend on its standard error. Second, we used a selection model that estimates the propensity of trial results being published and in which trials with lower propensity are weighted up in the NMA model. Both models rely on the assumption that biases are exchangeable across the network. We applied the models to 2 networks of placebo-controlled trials of 12 antidepressants, with 74 trials in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database but only 51 with published results. NMA and adjustment models were used to estimate the effects of the 12 drugs relative to placebo, the 66 effect sizes for all possible pair-wise comparisons between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs. We compared the results from the 2 adjustment models applied to published data and NMAs of published data and NMAs of FDA data, considered as representing the totality of the data.ResultsBoth adjustment models showed reduced estimated effects for the 12 drugs relative to the placebo as compared with NMA of published data. Pair-wise effect sizes between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs were modified. Estimated drug effects relative to the placebo from both adjustment models were corrected (i.e., similar to those from NMA of FDA data) for some drugs but not others, which resulted in differences in pair-wise effect sizes between drugs and ranking.ConclusionsIn this case study, adjustment models showed that NMA of published data was not robust to reporting bias and provided estimates closer to that of NMA of FDA data, although not optimal. The validity of such methods depends on the number of trials in the network and the assumption that conventional MAs in the network share a common mean bias mechanism.

Project description:BackgroundDementia is a clinical syndrome commonly seen in the elderly individuals. With the prevalence of dementia, the incidence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia patients is increasing annually. Agitation, as one of the neuropsychiatric symptoms, has a serious impact on the quality of life of patients with dementia. Several antidepressant drugs have been shown to be effective for treating agitated behavior symptoms in patients with dementia, but there are no direct comparisons among those drugs. Therefore, we carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the efficacy and safety of those antidepressant drugs.MethodsWe searched eight databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database and China biomedical literature service) from their inception to 6 November 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy and safety of antidepressant drugs in treating agitated behavior symptoms in patients with dementia were included in our analysis. The quality assessment was carried out by two researchers individually and the analysis was based on the frequency method.ResultsTwelve articles with 1,146 participants were included in our analysis. Based on the outcome of the agitation score, treatment with citalopram (standardized mean difference, SMD = -0.44, 95% confidence interval, 95% CI = -0.72 to -0.16) showed significant benefits over the placebo group. Treatment with trazodone (odds ratio, OR = 4.58, 95% CI = 1.12-18.69) was associated with a higher risk of total adverse events compared with a placebo treatment.ConclusionAmong the antidepressant drugs included in this study, treatment with citalopram was probably the only optimal intervention, when considering the improvement from baseline to the end of the intervention, and there was not a statistically significant difference in safety when compared with a placebo treatment.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier: PROSPERO, CRD42022320932.

Project description:Genome-wide association studies have identified hundreds of loci that influence a wide variety of complex human traits; however, little is known regarding the biological mechanism of action of these loci. The recent accumulation of functional genomics ("omics"), including metabolomics data, has created new opportunities for studying the functional role of specific changes in the genome. Functional genomic data are characterized by their high dimensionality, the presence of (strong) statistical dependency between traits, and, potentially, complex genetic control. Therefore, the analysis of such data requires specific statistical genetics methods. To facilitate our understanding of the genetic control of omics phenotypes, we propose a trait-centered, network-based conditional genetic association (cGAS) approach for identifying the direct effects of genetic variants on omics-based traits. For each trait of interest, we selected from a biological network a set of other traits to be used as covariates in the cGAS. The network can be reconstructed either from biological pathway databases (a mechanistic approach) or directly from the data, using a Gaussian graphical model applied to the metabolome (a data-driven approach). We derived mathematical expressions that allow comparison of the power of univariate analyses with conditional genetic association analyses. We then tested our approach using data from a population-based Cooperative Health Research in the region of Augsburg (KORA) study (n = 1,784 subjects, 1.7 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms) with measured data for 151 metabolites. We found that compared to single-trait analysis, performing a genetic association analysis that includes biologically relevant covariates can either gain or lose power, depending on specific pleiotropic scenarios, for which we provide empirical examples. In the context of analyzed metabolomics data, the mechanistic network approach had more power compared to the data-driven approach. Nevertheless, we believe that our analysis shows that neither a prior-knowledge-only approach nor a phenotypic-data-only approach is optimal, and we discuss possibilities for improvement.

Project description:ContextAntidepressant 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.ObjectiveTo estimate the relative benefit of medication vs placebo across a wide range of initial symptom severity in patients diagnosed with depression.Data sourcesPubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1980 through March 2009, along with references from meta-analyses and reviews.Study selectionRandomized 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 extractionIndividual patient-level data were obtained from study authors.ResultsMedication 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.ConclusionsThe 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

Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets