Literature DB >> 12225690

Enhancing the technology of clinical trials and the trials model to evaluate newly developed, targeted antidepressants.

Martin M Katz1, Uriel M Halbreich, Charles L Bowden, Alan Frazer, Roger M Pinder, A John Rush, David P Wheatley, Barry D Lebowitz.   

Abstract

Concern about disappointing results from recent multi-center trials of new antidepressants prompted several ACNP workshops on "improving the technology of clinical trials." The workshops focused on technical problems, such as patient screening, reliability of clinical ratings, and the role of the placebo control. They aimed to determine how to more effectively apply the current clinical trials model for evaluating antidepressant drugs. The problems confronting the field of clinical trials, however, extend beyond technology. They also included conceptual issues concerning changes in the understanding of depressive disorders and of the multiple actions of antidepressant drugs. Such problems have been further complicated by the rapidly changing field of drug development itself, which is continually refining the targeting of new antidepressant agents. Drugs are increasingly being developed to try to change specific behavioral facets more rapidly and may be less likely, therefore, to act initially on "whole" disorders. To address such issues, a symposium was held in Rhodes in 2000 that focused on such conceptual changes with the goal of developing recommendations to revise the clinical evaluation model. Its purpose was to integrate new knowledge on depression and the mechanisms of action of antidepressant drugs toward developing more efficient methods of drug development. Since the evaluation process will eventually require changes in governmental policy, senior staff from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) , Unites States and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Unites States participated as well as members of academia, industry and clinical practice. Recommendations for altering clinical trial methodology were made in four areas: patient selection, methodology of evaluation, measuring onset of action, and FDA and NIMH perspectives on current practice. This article discusses these four areas and presents the consensus of the panel participants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12225690     DOI: 10.1016/S0893-133X(02)00329-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology        ISSN: 0893-133X            Impact factor:   7.853


  5 in total

1.  New insights into the efficacy of naltrexone based on trajectory-based reanalyses of two negative clinical trials.

Authors:  Ralitza Gueorguieva; Ran Wu; Brian Pittman; Joyce Cramer; Robert A Rosenheck; Stephanie S O'malley; John H Krystal
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 13.382

2.  Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate (Quetiapine XR) as Adjunct Therapy in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and a History of Inadequate Treatment Response: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

Authors:  Arifulla Khan; Sarah Atkinson; Irina Mezhebovsky; Fahua She; Todd Leathers; Sanjeev Pathak
Journal:  Psychopharmacol Bull       Date:  2011-05-15

3.  Time course of clinical response to venlafaxine: relevance of plasma level and chirality.

Authors:  Marianne Gex-Fabry; Androniki E Balant-Gorgia; Luc P Balant; Serge Rudaz; Jean-Luc Veuthey; Gilles Bertschy
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-12-24       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  Challenges in the development of clinical trials for major depressive disorder: lessons learned from trials in minor depression.

Authors:  Mark H Rapaport; Rachel E Maddux
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.986

5.  Enhancing central noradrenergic function in depression: is there still a place for a new antidepressant?

Authors:  Roger M Pinder
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.570

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.