BACKGROUND: Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to give the most reliable information on treatment outcome (efficacy). Yet, the generalizability of efficacy results to daily practice (effectiveness) might be diminished by the design of RCTs. The STAR*D trial approached daily practice as much as possible, but still has some properties of an RCT. In this study, we compare results from treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in routine clinical practice to those of RCTs and STAR*D. METHODS: Effectiveness in routine clinical practice was compared with efficacy results from 15 meta-analyses on antidepressant, psychotherapeutic and combination treatment and results from STAR*D. Data on daily practice patients and treatments were derived from a routine outcome monitoring (ROM) system. Treatment outcome was defined as proportion of remitters (MADRS ≤10) and within-group effect size. RESULTS: From ROM, 598 patients suffering from a MDD episode according to the MINI-plus were included. Remission percentages were lower in routine practice than in meta-analyses for all treatment modalities (32 vs.40-74%). Differences were less explicit for antidepressants (21 vs. 34-47%) than for individual psychotherapy (27 vs. 34-58%; effect size 0.85 vs. 1.71) and combination therapy (21 vs. 45-63%), since only 60% of the meta-analyses for antidepressants showed significant differences with ROM, while for psychotherapy and combination treatment almost all meta-analyses showed significant differences. No differences in effectiveness were found between routine practice and STAR*D (antidepressants 27 vs. 28%; individual psychotherapy 27 vs. 25%; combination treatment 21 vs. 23%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of treatment for mild-to-moderate MDD in daily practice is similar to STAR*D and significantly lower than efficacy results from RCTs.
BACKGROUND: Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to give the most reliable information on treatment outcome (efficacy). Yet, the generalizability of efficacy results to daily practice (effectiveness) might be diminished by the design of RCTs. The STAR*D trial approached daily practice as much as possible, but still has some properties of an RCT. In this study, we compare results from treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in routine clinical practice to those of RCTs and STAR*D. METHODS: Effectiveness in routine clinical practice was compared with efficacy results from 15 meta-analyses on antidepressant, psychotherapeutic and combination treatment and results from STAR*D. Data on daily practice patients and treatments were derived from a routine outcome monitoring (ROM) system. Treatment outcome was defined as proportion of remitters (MADRS ≤10) and within-group effect size. RESULTS: From ROM, 598 patients suffering from a MDD episode according to the MINI-plus were included. Remission percentages were lower in routine practice than in meta-analyses for all treatment modalities (32 vs.40-74%). Differences were less explicit for antidepressants (21 vs. 34-47%) than for individual psychotherapy (27 vs. 34-58%; effect size 0.85 vs. 1.71) and combination therapy (21 vs. 45-63%), since only 60% of the meta-analyses for antidepressants showed significant differences with ROM, while for psychotherapy and combination treatment almost all meta-analyses showed significant differences. No differences in effectiveness were found between routine practice and STAR*D (antidepressants 27 vs. 28%; individual psychotherapy 27 vs. 25%; combination treatment 21 vs. 23%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of treatment for mild-to-moderate MDD in daily practice is similar to STAR*D and significantly lower than efficacy results from RCTs.
Authors: Michael F Grunebaum; John G Keilp; Steven P Ellis; Katherin Sudol; Neal Bauer; Ainsley K Burke; Maria A Oquendo; J John Mann Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Selwin S Audhoe; Karen Nieuwenhuijsen; Jan L Hoving; Judith K Sluiter; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Lindsay J L Forbes; Alice S Forster; Rachael H Dodd; Lorraine Tucker; Rachel Laming; Sarah Sellars; Julietta Patnick; Amanda J Ramirez Journal: J Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-11-07
Authors: Rosalind van der Lem; Wouter Wh de Wever; Nic Ja van der Wee; Tineke van Veen; Pim Cuijpers; Frans G Zitman Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2012-11-08 Impact factor: 3.630