Literature DB >> 20520295

Site versus centralized raters in a clinical depression trial: impact on patient selection and placebo response.

Kenneth A Kobak1, Andrew Leuchter, David DeBrota, Nina Engelhardt, Janet B W Williams, Ian A Cook, Andrew C Leon, Jonathan Alpert.   

Abstract

The use of centralized raters who are remotely linked to sites and interview patients via videoconferencing or teleconferencing has been suggested as a way to improve interrater reliability and interview quality. This study compared the effect of site-based and centralized ratings on patient selection and placebo response in subjects with major depressive disorder. Subjects in a 2-center placebo and active comparator controlled depression trial were interviewed twice at each of 3 time points: baseline, 1-week postbaseline, and end point--once by the site rater and once remotely via videoconference by a centralized rater. Raters were blind to each others' scores. A site-based score of greater than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) was required for study entry. When examining all subjects entering the study, site-based raters' HDRS-17 scores were significantly higher than centralized raters' at baseline and postbaseline but not at end point. At baseline, 35% of subjects given an HDRS-17 total score of greater than 17 by a site rater were given an HDRS total score of lower than 17 by a centralized rater and would have been ineligible to enter the study if the centralized rater's score was used to determine study entry. The mean placebo change for site raters (7.52) was significantly greater than the mean placebo change for centralized raters (3.18, P < 0.001). Twenty-eight percent were placebo responders (>50% reduction in HDRS) based on site ratings versus 14% for central ratings (P < 0.001). When examining data only from those subjects whom site and centralized raters agreed were eligible for the study, there was no significant difference in the HDRS-17 scores. Findings suggest that the use of centralized raters could significantly change the study sample in a major depressive disorder trial and lead to significantly less change in mood ratings among those randomized to placebo.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20520295     DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181d20912

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  The small specific effects of antidepressants in clinical trials: what do they mean to psychiatrists?

Authors:  Michael E Thase
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.285

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

Review 3.  Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2020-12-18

Review 4.  Novel methods and technologies for 21st-century clinical trials: a review.

Authors:  E Ray Dorsey; Charles Venuto; Vinayak Venkataraman; Denzil A Harris; Karl Kieburtz
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 18.302

5.  Placebo response in antipsychotic clinical trials: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bret R Rutherford; Emily Pott; Jane M Tandler; Melanie M Wall; Steven P Roose; Jeffrey A Lieberman
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 21.596

6.  Feasibility of Virtual Research Visits in Fox Trial Finder.

Authors:  E Ray Dorsey; Joseph D Wagner; Michael T Bull; Ashley Rizzieri; Justin Grischkan; Meredith A Achey; Todd Sherer; Sohini Chowdhury; Claire Meunier; Lily Cappelletti; Charlotte Rocker; Irene H Richard; Heidi Schwarz; Gail Kang; Stacy H Ahmad; Rachel A Biemiller; Kevin M Biglan
Journal:  J Parkinsons Dis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 5.568

7.  Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz; Robert H Dworkin; Richard North; Simon Thomson; Sam Eldabe; Salim M Hayek; Brian H Kopell; John Markman; Ali Rezai; Rod S Taylor; Dennis C Turk; Eric Buchser; Howard Fields; Gregory Fiore; McKenzie Ferguson; Jennifer Gewandter; Chris Hilker; Roshini Jain; Angela Leitner; John Loeser; Ewan McNicol; Turo Nurmikko; Jane Shipley; Rahul Singh; Andrea Trescot; Robert van Dongen; Lalit Venkatesan
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 8.  Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia: opportunities, limitations, and trial design alternatives.

Authors:  Christoph U Correll; Taishiro Kishimoto; John M Kane
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 5.986

9.  Comparing in-person to videoconference-based cognitive behavioral therapy for mood and anxiety disorders: randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel R Stubbings; Clare S Rees; Lynne D Roberts; Robert T Kane
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Magnitude of change with antidepressants and placebo in antidepressant clinical trials using structured, taped and appraised rater interviews (SIGMA-RAPS) compared to trials using traditional semi-structured interviews.

Authors:  Arif Khan; James Faucett; Walter A Brown
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 4.530

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.