Literature DB >> 20816028

Do efficacy and effectiveness samples differ in antidepressant treatment outcome? An analysis of eligibility criteria in randomized controlled trials.

Florian Seemüller1, Hans-Jürgen Möller, Michael Obermeier, Mazda Adli, Michael Bauer, Klaus Kronmüller, Florian Holsboer, Peter Brieger, Gerd Laux, Wolfram Bender, Isabella Heuser, Joachim Zeiler, Wolfgang Gaebel, Rebecca Schennach-Wolff, Verena Henkel, Michael Riedel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, results drawn from placebo-controlled randomized antidepressant efficacy trials may not be transferable to real-world patients.
METHOD: This study was performed from March 2000 to September 2005 as a prospective, multicenter follow-up. Patients were recruited from February 2000 to June 2005. All patients were hospitalized (N = 1,014) and met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive episode. Assessments with the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale were conducted biweekly until discharge. According to the most commonly applied exclusion criteria in randomized controlled antidepressant efficacy trials, patients were retrospectively divided into 2 groups: (1) patients not fulfilling exclusion criteria and therefore eligible for a randomized placebo-controlled trial, referred to as "efficacy sample," and (2) patients fulfilling at least 1 exclusion criterion, not being eligible for inclusion in an efficacy trial ("nonefficacy sample"). The efficacy sample was compared with the nonefficacy sample in terms of sociodemographic and clinical baseline variables and outcome measures, such as remission and response rates, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale mean scores, time to remission, and time to response.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found, with the efficacy sample being older (P = .03) and being more often treated at a university hospital (P = .02). The efficacy sample demonstrated superior outcome only in significantly higher mean Global Assessment of Functioning scores at discharge (P = .03). There were no differences regarding remission (P = .68) and response (P = .06) rates, length of hospital stay (P = .49), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score at discharge (P = .13), or time to response (P = .39) or remission (P = .16).
CONCLUSIONS: Both groups differed significantly in several baseline measures and final Global Assessment of Functioning scores but not in any other outcome measure. Challenging current beliefs, our findings show that results from efficacy antidepressant trials might be more generalizable than previously thought. © Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20816028     DOI: 10.4088/JCP.09m05166blu

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry        ISSN: 0160-6689            Impact factor:   4.384


  10 in total

1.  How close is evidence to truth in evidence-based treatment of mental disorders?

Authors:  Hans-Jürgen Möller
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 5.270

2.  Improving study design for antidepressant effectiveness assessment.

Authors:  Florian Naudet; Bruno Millet; Jean Michel Reymann; Bruno Falissard
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 4.035

3.  Principle standards and problems regarding proof of efficacy in clinical psychopharmacology.

Authors:  Hans-Jürgen Möller; Karl Broich
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.270

4.  Mirroring everyday clinical practice in clinical trial design: a new concept to improve the external validity of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials in the pharmacological treatment of major depression.

Authors:  Emanuel Severus; Florian Seemüller; Michael Berger; Sandra Dittmann; Michael Obermeier; Andrea Pfennig; Michael Riedel; Sophia Frangou; Hans-Jürgen Möller; Michael Bauer
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-07-02       Impact factor: 8.775

5.  General and comparative efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants in the acute treatment of depressive disorders: a report by the WPA section of pharmacopsychiatry.

Authors:  Thomas C Baghai; Pierre Blier; David S Baldwin; Michael Bauer; Guy M Goodwin; Kostas N Fountoulakis; Siegfried Kasper; Brian E Leonard; Ulrik F Malt; Dan Stein; Marcio Versiani; Hans-Jürgen Möller
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 5.270

6.  Is placebo useful in the treatment of major depression in clinical practice?

Authors:  Carlo Marchesi; Chiara De Panfilis; Matteo Tonna; Paolo Ossola
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 2.570

Review 7.  Effectiveness studies: advantages and disadvantages.

Authors:  Hans-Jürgen Möller
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 5.986

8.  Antidepressant response in major depressive disorder: a meta-regression comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Authors:  Florian Naudet; Anne Solène Maria; Bruno Falissard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results.

Authors:  Tessa Kennedy-Martin; Sarah Curtis; Douglas Faries; Susan Robinson; Joseph Johnston
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Stability of remission rates in a 3-year follow-up of naturalistic treated depressed inpatients.

Authors:  Florian Seemüller; Michael Obermeier; Rebecca Schennach; Michael Bauer; Mazda Adli; Peter Brieger; Gerd Laux; Michael Riedel; Peter Falkai; Hans-Jürgen Möller
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 3.630

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.