Literature DB >> 11763002

The double-blind variable placebo lead-in period: results from two antidepressant clinical trials.

D E Faries1, J H Heiligenstein, G D Tollefson, W Z Potter.   

Abstract

The 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in has long been a standard in double-blind psychopharmacology clinical trials. Although a lead-in period is often necessary (e.g., to receive laboratory results before randomization), some authors have demonstrated that the standard single-blind placebo lead-in's performance was similar to having a lead-in in which placebo was not administered. The single-blind placebo lead-in did not decrease postrandomization placebo response, nor did it increase drug-placebo differences. To eliminate a higher percentage of placebo responders before randomization and to reduce potential biases in baseline ratings, the authors designed and implemented two depression studies with a double-blind variable placebo lead-in period. In these designs, both the patients and personnel at the investigative sites were blinded to the length of the placebo lead-in period and the start of the active treatment period. Approximately 28% of the patients in the double-blind placebo lead-in studies met criteria to be placebo lead-in responders, as compared with fewer than 10% from two single-blind placebo lead-in studies conducted in a similar time frame. Although all patients continued in the study (including placebo lead-in responders), the primary efficacy analysis prospectively excluded double-blind placebo lead-in responders. Analysis of postrandomization changes revealed that double-blind placebo lead-in responders, even when continuing to receive placebo treatment, maintained their response. At the study endpoint, these placebo lead-in responders had significantly lower severity scores than their counterparts who were not lead-in responders. The prospective removal of lead-in responders thus resulted in an increase in mean endpoint placebo group severity scores. This resulted in an increased drug-placebo treatment difference in one of the two studies but had no effect on the treatment difference in the other study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11763002     DOI: 10.1097/00004714-200112000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Psychopharmacol        ISSN: 0271-0749            Impact factor:   3.153


  14 in total

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

Authors:  Ralitza Gueorguieva; Craig Mallinckrodt; John H Krystal
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2011-12

2.  The placebo effect in clinical trials for alcohol dependence: an exploratory analysis of 51 naltrexone and acamprosate studies.

Authors:  Raye Z Litten; I-Jen P Castle; Daniel Falk; Megan Ryan; Joanne Fertig; Chiung M Chen; Hsiao-ye Yi
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.455

3.  Factors Associated With Response to Placebo in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Constipation.

Authors:  Sarah Ballou; Alissa Beath; Ted J Kaptchuk; William Hirsch; Thomas Sommers; Judy Nee; Johanna Iturrino; Vikram Rangan; Prashant Singh; Mike Jones; Anthony Lembo
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Pretreatment neurophysiological and clinical characteristics of placebo responders in treatment trials for major depression.

Authors:  Andrew F Leuchter; Melinda Morgan; Ian A Cook; Jennifer Dunkin; Michelle Abrams; Elise Witte
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2004-07-14       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 5.  A model of placebo response in antidepressant clinical trials.

Authors:  Bret R Rutherford; Steven P Roose
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 18.112

6.  Bayesian modelling and ROC analysis to predict placebo responders using clinical score measured in the initial weeks of treatment in depression trials.

Authors:  Roberto Gomeni; Emilio Merlo-Pich
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 7.  Medication Nonadherence, "Professional Subjects," and Apparent Placebo Responders: Overlapping Challenges for Medications Development.

Authors:  David J McCann; Nancy M Petry; Anders Bresell; Eva Isacsson; Ellis Wilson; Robert C Alexander
Journal:  J Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.153

8.  Should we treat depression with drugs or psychological interventions? A reply to Ioannidis.

Authors:  John M Davis; William J Giakas; Jie Qu; Pavan Prasad; Stefan Leucht
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 2.464

Review 9.  Antidepressants and advertising: psychopharmaceuticals in crisis.

Authors:  Nathan P Greenslit; Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2012-03-29

10.  What is causing the reduced drug-placebo difference in recent schizophrenia clinical trials and what can be done about it?

Authors:  Aaron S Kemp; Nina R Schooler; Amir H Kalali; Larry Alphs; Ravi Anand; George Awad; Michael Davidson; Sanjay Dubé; Larry Ereshefsky; Georges Gharabawi; Andrew C Leon; Jean-Pierre Lepine; Steven G Potkin; An Vermeulen
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2008-08-22       Impact factor: 9.306

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.