OBJECTIVE: Antidepressant efficacy trials use multiple exclusion criteria that are intended primarily to maximize differences between the drug and placebo. These exclusion criteria were implemented prior to having undergone rigorous testing, however, and it is unclear whether they accomplish their intended goal. The authors review the current state of knowledge about treatment response rates in individuals who are typically excluded from antidepressant efficacy trials. METHOD: After reviewing 31 antidepressant efficacy trials published between 1994 and 1998, the authors identified 10 commonly used exclusion criteria. A computerized MEDLINE search and a manual search were used to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of antidepressant medications in populations of subjects typically excluded from antidepressant efficacy trials. RESULTS: Three exclusion criteria-short episode duration, mild severity of illness, and positive response during the placebo lead-in phase-are used primarily to reduce placebo response rates. Preliminary evidence suggests that, of those three criteria, only a short episode duration has been associated with less robust differences between drug and placebo response rates. The seven other exclusion criteria, including various psychiatric comorbidities, long duration of illness, medical comorbidity, and prior nonresponse to treatment, are used because individuals who meet those criteria are believed to have lower response rates to somatic therapy. Although such individuals are often found to have lower response rates to somatic therapy, they also appear to have lower response rates to placebo, and there is little evidence to suggest that drug-placebo differences are any less robust in these individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the standard exclusion criteria currently used in antidepressant efficacy trials may not be achieving their intended goal of maximizing drug-placebo differences. The practice of excluding subjects with particular clinical profiles, which greatly reduces the generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials, appears to lack empirical support.
OBJECTIVE: Antidepressant efficacy trials use multiple exclusion criteria that are intended primarily to maximize differences between the drug and placebo. These exclusion criteria were implemented prior to having undergone rigorous testing, however, and it is unclear whether they accomplish their intended goal. The authors review the current state of knowledge about treatment response rates in individuals who are typically excluded from antidepressant efficacy trials. METHOD: After reviewing 31 antidepressant efficacy trials published between 1994 and 1998, the authors identified 10 commonly used exclusion criteria. A computerized MEDLINE search and a manual search were used to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of antidepressant medications in populations of subjects typically excluded from antidepressant efficacy trials. RESULTS: Three exclusion criteria-short episode duration, mild severity of illness, and positive response during the placebo lead-in phase-are used primarily to reduce placebo response rates. Preliminary evidence suggests that, of those three criteria, only a short episode duration has been associated with less robust differences between drug and placebo response rates. The seven other exclusion criteria, including various psychiatric comorbidities, long duration of illness, medical comorbidity, and prior nonresponse to treatment, are used because individuals who meet those criteria are believed to have lower response rates to somatic therapy. Although such individuals are often found to have lower response rates to somatic therapy, they also appear to have lower response rates to placebo, and there is little evidence to suggest that drug-placebo differences are any less robust in these individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the standard exclusion criteria currently used in antidepressant efficacy trials may not be achieving their intended goal of maximizing drug-placebo differences. The practice of excluding subjects with particular clinical profiles, which greatly reduces the generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials, appears to lack empirical support.
Authors: Mayumi Okuda; Deborah S Hasin; Mark Olfson; Sharaf S Khan; Edward V Nunes; Ivan Montoya; Shang-Min Liu; Bridget F Grant; Carlos Blanco Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Alexander C Tsai; Dan H Karasic; Gwendolyn P Hammer; Edwin D Charlebois; Kathy Ragland; Andrew R Moss; James L Sorensen; James W Dilley; David R Bangsberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Florian Seemüller; Sebastian Meier; Michael Obermeier; Richard Musil; Michael Bauer; Mazda Adli; Klaus Kronmüller; Florian Holsboer; Peter Brieger; Gerd Laux; Wolfram Bender; Isabella Heuser; Joachim Zeiler; Wolfgang Gaebel; Michael Riedel; Peter Falkai; Hans-Jürgen Möller Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Alexander C Tsai; Sheri D Weiser; Maya L Petersen; Kathleen Ragland; Margot B Kushel; David R Bangsberg Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-12
Authors: R van der Lem; P M Stamsnieder; N J A van der Wee; T van Veen; F G Zitman Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 4.328