Dataset Information

Do side effects of antidepressants impact efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale? A pooled patient-level analysis.

ABSTRACT: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) measures symptoms that may overlap with common antidepressant side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction), thus making it possible that side effects of antidepressant treatment are erroneously rated as symptoms of depression, and vice versa. This study uses patient-level data from previously conducted antidepressant treatment trials to assess whether side effect ratings co-vary with HDRS-17 ratings. Data from all HDRS-17-rated, industry-sponsored pre- and post-marketing trials (n = 4647) comparing the serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, to placebo and/or to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor were pooled; three studies, which utilised sub-therapeutic doses, did not have symptom-level ratings available and could not be included. Severity was assessed for side effects related to sleep, somatic anxiety, gastrointestinal function, and sexual dysfunction. Analysis of covariance was used to assess the relation between these side effects and ratings of relevant HDRS-17-derived outcome parameters. Side effects related to sleep, somatic anxiety and sexual dysfunction significantly and exclusively associated with higher scores on HDRS-17 items measuring the corresponding domains. Side effects related to gastrointestinal function associated with higher HDRS-17 item scores on all assessed domains. Treatment outcome was significantly related to side effect severity when assessed using HDRS-17-sum (beta 0.32 (0.074), p < 0.001), but not when the HDRS-6-sum-score (beta 0.035 (0.043), p = 0.415) or the depressed mood item (beta 0.007 (0.012), p = .527) were used as effect parameters. That some HDRS-17 items co-vary with common antidepressant side effects suggests some of these adverse events are counted twice, potentially leading to an underestimation of antidepressant efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Hieronymus F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8079707 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:It has been claimed that efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating-Scale (HDRS) underestimate antidepressants true treatment effects due to the instrument's poor psychometric properties. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy estimates based on the HDRS with the gold standard procedure, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating-Scale (MADRS). METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a meta-analysis based on the comprehensive dataset of acute antidepressant trials provided by Cipriani et al. We included all placebo-controlled trials that reported continuous outcomes based on either the HDRS 17-item version or the MADRS. We computed standardised mean difference effect size estimates and raw score drug-placebo differences to evaluate thresholds for clinician-rated minimal improvements (clinical significance). We selected 109 trials (n = 32,399) that assessed the HDRS-17 and 28 trials (n = 11,705) that assessed the MADRS. The summary estimate (effect size) for the HDRS-17 was 0.27 (0.23 to 0.30) compared to 0.30 (0.22 to 0.38) for the MADRS. The effect size difference between HDRS-17 and MADRS was thus only 0.03 and not statistically significant according to both subgroup analysis (p = 0.47) and meta-regression (p = 0.44). Drug-placebo raw score difference was 2.07 (1.76 to 2.37) points on the HDRS-17 (threshold for minimal improvement: 7 points according to clinician-rating and 4 points according to patient-rating) and 2.99 (2.24 to 3.74) points on the MADRS (threshold for minimal improvement: 8 points according to clinician-rating and 5 points according to patient-rating). CONCLUSIONS:Overall there was no meaningful difference between the HDRS-17 and the MADRS. These findings suggest that previous meta-analyses that were mostly based on the HDRS did not underestimate the drugs' true treatment effect as assessed with MADRS, the preferred outcome rating scale. Moreover, the drug-placebo differences in raw scores suggest that treatment effects are indeed marginally small and with questionable importance for the average patient.

Project description:Background: The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) has been used for several decades to assess the severity of depression. Multiple studies have documented defects in this scale and deemed it unsuitable for clinical evaluation. The HAMD-6, which is the abbreviated version of HAMD-17, has been shown to be effective in assessing the core symptoms of depression with greater sensitivity than HAMD-17. And the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is suggested as an effective alternative to the HAMD-17 because of its simplicity and ease-of-use. Methods: Research was completed involving 1,741 participants having major depressive disorder. Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted Kappa analysis was used to determine the reliability of the scales. Pearson correlation analysis and factor analysis were used to analyze validity. Item response theory (IRT) was used to analyze psychological characteristics of items in both the HAMD-17 and PHQ-9. Results: Reliability analysis showed that the Cronbach's alpha of the HAMD-17, HAMD-6 and PHQ-9 were 0.829, 0.764, and 0.893 respectively, and the ICC of the three scales ranged from 0.606 to 0.744. The Kappa score of the consistency of depression severity assessment was 0.248. Validity analysis showed that the PHQ-9 was a single factor structure, and the total score of the scale was strongly correlated with the HAMD-17 (r = 0.724, P < 0.001). The IRT analysis showed that the discrimination parameters of the PHQ-9 were higher than that of the HAMD-17 in all dimensions. The HAMD-6 had the lowest measurement accuracy in distinguishing the severity of depression, while the PHQ-9 had the highest measurement accuracy. Conclusion: Results showed that the PHQ-9 was satisfactory in terms of reliability, validity and distinguishing the severity of depression. It is a simple, rapid, effective and reliable tool which can be used as an alternative to the HAMD-17 to assess the severity of depression.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses of published and unpublished trials indicate that antidepressants provide modest benefits compared to placebo in the treatment of depression; some have argued that these benefits are not clinically significant. However, these meta-analyses were based only on trials submitted for the initial FDA approval of the medication and were limited to those aimed at treating depression. Here, for the first time, we assess the efficacy of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in the treatment of both anxiety and depression, using a complete data set of all published and unpublished trials sponsored by the manufacturer.Methods and findingsGlaxoSmithKline has been required to post the results for all sponsored clinical trials online, providing an opportunity to assess the efficacy of an SSRI (paroxetine) with a complete data set of all trials conducted. We examined the data from all placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of paroxetine that included change scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HRSA) and/or the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). For the treatment of anxiety (k = 12), the efficacy difference between paroxetine and placebo was modest (d = 0.27), and independent of baseline severity of anxiety. Overall change in placebo-treated individuals replicated 79% of the magnitude of paroxetine response. Efficacy was superior for the treatment of panic disorder (d = 0.36) than for generalized anxiety disorder (d = 0.20). Published trials showed significantly larger drug-placebo differences than unpublished trials (d's = 0.32 and 0.17, respectively). In depression trials (k = 27), the benefit of paroxetine over placebo was consistent with previous meta-analyses of antidepressant efficacy (d = 0.32).ConclusionsThe available empirical evidence indicates that paroxetine provides only a modest advantage over placebo in treatment of anxiety and depression. Treatment implications are discussed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous research suggests that the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) is less sensitive in detecting differences between active treatment and placebo for major depressive disorder (MDD) than is the HAM-D6 scale, which focuses on six core depression symptoms. Whether HAM-D6 shows greater sensitivity when comparing two active MDD treatment arms is unknown. METHODS:This post hoc analysis used data from the intent-to-treat (ITT) cohort (N = 1541) of the Genomics Used to Improve DEpression Decisions (GUIDED) trial, a rater- and patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. GUIDED compared combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care with treatment as usual (TAU) in patients with MDD. Percent of symptom improvement, response rate and remission rate from baseline to week 8 were evaluated using both scales. Analyses were performed for the full cohort and for the subset of patients who at baseline were taking medications predicted by the test to have moderate or significant gene-drug interactions. A Mokken scale analysis was conducted to compare the homogeneity of HAM-D17 with that of HAM-D6. RESULTS:At week 8, the guided-care arm demonstrated statistically significant benefit over TAU when the HAM-D6 (∆ = 4.4%, p = 0.023) was used as the continuous measure of symptom improvement, but not when using the HAM-D17 (∆ = 3.2%, p = 0.069). Response rates increased significantly for guided-care compared with TAU when evaluated using both HAM-D6 (∆ = 7.0%, p = 0.004) and HAM-D17 (∆ = 6.3%, p = 0.007). Remission rates also were significantly greater for guided-care versus TAU using both measures (HAM-D6 ∆ = 4.6%, p = 0.031; HAM-D17 ∆ = 5.5%, p = 0.005). Patients in the guided-care arm who at baseline were taking medications predicted to have gene-drug interactions showed further increased benefit over TAU at week 8 for symptom improvement (∆ = 7.3%, p = 0.004) response (∆ = 10.0%, p = 0.001) and remission (∆ = 7.9%, p = 0.005) using HAM-D6. All outcomes showed continued improvement through week 24. Mokken scale analysis demonstrated the homogeneity and unidimensionality of HAM-D6, but not of HAM-D17, across treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS:The HAM-D6 scale identified a statistically significant difference in symptom improvement between combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care and TAU, whereas the HAM-D17 did not. The demonstrated utility of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment over TAU as detected by the HAM-D6 highlights its value for future biomarker-guided trials comparing active treatment arms. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02109939. Registered 10 April 2014.

Dataset Information

Do side effects of antidepressants impact efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale? A pooled patient-level analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets