Bret R Rutherford1, Joel R Sneed, Steven P Roose. 1. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States. brr8@columbia.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Response to antidepressants is higher in active comparator relative to placebo-controlled clinical trials. Increased patient expectancy in comparator trials has been hypothesized to explain this finding, but previous analyses have not accounted for the increased drop-out observed in placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published antidepressant clinical trials reporting data on intent-to-treat (ITT) as well as completer patient populations. The influence of participant drop-out on observed antidepressant response was investigated by comparing the ITT and completer data sets in separate multilevel meta-analyses of antidepressant response in placebo-controlled and comparator trials. RESULTS: 18 placebo-controlled and 18 active comparator studies were available for analysis. Using the intent-to-treat data, the odds of responding to medication in comparator trials were 1.9 times the odds in placebo-controlled trials (95% CI=1.3-2.7, p=0.001). The same pattern was obtained among study completers, in whom the odds of responding to antidepressant medication were 1.9 times higher in comparator as opposed to placebo-controlled study designs (95% CI=1.2-3.0, p=0.009). LIMITATIONS: Publication bias, the use of trial-level summary data, and unreported clinical or demographic differences between the ITT and completer patient populations may have influenced the study results. CONCLUSIONS: Increased drop-out in placebo-controlled vs. active comparator studies of antidepressant medications does not appear to explain the difference in response rates between these study types. Rather, increased patient expectancy resulting from the certainty of receiving active medication in comparator trials may lead to improved response rates.
BACKGROUND: Response to antidepressants is higher in active comparator relative to placebo-controlled clinical trials. Increased patient expectancy in comparator trials has been hypothesized to explain this finding, but previous analyses have not accounted for the increased drop-out observed in placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published antidepressant clinical trials reporting data on intent-to-treat (ITT) as well as completer patient populations. The influence of participant drop-out on observed antidepressant response was investigated by comparing the ITT and completer data sets in separate multilevel meta-analyses of antidepressant response in placebo-controlled and comparator trials. RESULTS: 18 placebo-controlled and 18 active comparator studies were available for analysis. Using the intent-to-treat data, the odds of responding to medication in comparator trials were 1.9 times the odds in placebo-controlled trials (95% CI=1.3-2.7, p=0.001). The same pattern was obtained among study completers, in whom the odds of responding to antidepressant medication were 1.9 times higher in comparator as opposed to placebo-controlled study designs (95% CI=1.2-3.0, p=0.009). LIMITATIONS: Publication bias, the use of trial-level summary data, and unreported clinical or demographic differences between the ITT and completer patient populations may have influenced the study results. CONCLUSIONS: Increased drop-out in placebo-controlled vs. active comparator studies of antidepressant medications does not appear to explain the difference in response rates between these study types. Rather, increased patient expectancy resulting from the certainty of receiving active medication in comparator trials may lead to improved response rates.
Authors: Mark Sinyor; Anthony J Levitt; Amy H Cheung; Ayal Schaffer; Alex Kiss; Yekta Dowlati; Krista L Lanctôt Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: M Patris; J M Bouchard; T Bougerol; J F Charbonnier; J F Chevalier; G Clerc; C Cyran; P Van Amerongen; O Lemming; H E Høpfner Petersen Journal: Int Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 1.659
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bret R Rutherford; Jane Tandler; Patrick J Brown; Joel R Sneed; Steven P Roose Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Bret R Rutherford; Timothy M Cooper; Amanda Persaud; Patrick J Brown; Joel R Sneed; Steven P Roose Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Toshi A Furukawa; Georgia Salanti; Lauren Z Atkinson; Stefan Leucht; Henricus G Ruhe; Erick H Turner; Anna Chaimani; Yusuke Ogawa; Nozomi Takeshima; Yu Hayasaka; Hissei Imai; Kiyomi Shinohara; Aya Suganuma; Norio Watanabe; Sarah Stockton; John R Geddes; Andrea Cipriani Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 2.692