R C Kessler1, H M van Loo2, K J Wardenaar2, R M Bossarte3, L A Brenner4, D D Ebert1, P de Jonge2, A A Nierenberg5, A J Rosellini1, N A Sampson1, R A Schoevers2, M A Wilcox6, A M Zaslavsky1. 1. Department of Health Care Policy,Harvard Medical School,Boston, MA,USA. 2. Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE),University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen,Groningen,The Netherlands. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs,Office of Public Health,Washington, DC,USA. 4. VISN 19 Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center,University of Colorado,Anschutz Medical Campus,Anschulz, CO,USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Depression Clinical and Research Program,Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital,Boston, MA,USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology,Janssen Research and Development,Titusville, NJ,USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: Clinicians need guidance to address the heterogeneity of treatment responses of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). While prediction schemes based on symptom clustering and biomarkers have so far not yielded results of sufficient strength to inform clinical decision-making, prediction schemes based on big data predictive analytic models might be more practically useful. METHOD: We review evidence suggesting that prediction equations based on symptoms and other easily-assessed clinical features found in previous research to predict MDD treatment outcomes might provide a foundation for developing predictive analytic clinical decision support models that could help clinicians select optimal (personalised) MDD treatments. These methods could also be useful in targeting patient subsamples for more expensive biomarker assessments. RESULTS: Approximately two dozen baseline variables obtained from medical records or patient reports have been found repeatedly in MDD treatment trials to predict overall treatment outcomes (i.e., intervention v. control) or differential treatment outcomes (i.e., intervention A v. intervention B). Similar evidence has been found in observational studies of MDD persistence-severity. However, no treatment studies have yet attempted to develop treatment outcome equations using the full set of these predictors. Promising preliminary empirical results coupled with recent developments in statistical methodology suggest that models could be developed to provide useful clinical decision support in personalised treatment selection. These tools could also provide a strong foundation to increase statistical power in focused studies of biomarkers and MDD heterogeneity of treatment response in subsequent controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated efforts are needed to develop a protocol for systematically collecting information about established predictors of heterogeneity of MDD treatment response in large observational treatment studies, applying and refining these models in subsequent pragmatic trials, carrying out pooled secondary analyses to extract the maximum amount of information from these coordinated studies, and using this information to focus future discovery efforts in the segment of the patient population in which continued uncertainty about treatment response exists.
BACKGROUNDS: Clinicians need guidance to address the heterogeneity of treatment responses of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). While prediction schemes based on symptom clustering and biomarkers have so far not yielded results of sufficient strength to inform clinical decision-making, prediction schemes based on big data predictive analytic models might be more practically useful. METHOD: We review evidence suggesting that prediction equations based on symptoms and other easily-assessed clinical features found in previous research to predict MDD treatment outcomes might provide a foundation for developing predictive analytic clinical decision support models that could help clinicians select optimal (personalised) MDD treatments. These methods could also be useful in targeting patient subsamples for more expensive biomarker assessments. RESULTS: Approximately two dozen baseline variables obtained from medical records or patient reports have been found repeatedly in MDD treatment trials to predict overall treatment outcomes (i.e., intervention v. control) or differential treatment outcomes (i.e., intervention A v. intervention B). Similar evidence has been found in observational studies of MDD persistence-severity. However, no treatment studies have yet attempted to develop treatment outcome equations using the full set of these predictors. Promising preliminary empirical results coupled with recent developments in statistical methodology suggest that models could be developed to provide useful clinical decision support in personalised treatment selection. These tools could also provide a strong foundation to increase statistical power in focused studies of biomarkers and MDD heterogeneity of treatment response in subsequent controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated efforts are needed to develop a protocol for systematically collecting information about established predictors of heterogeneity of MDD treatment response in large observational treatment studies, applying and refining these models in subsequent pragmatic trials, carrying out pooled secondary analyses to extract the maximum amount of information from these coordinated studies, and using this information to focus future discovery efforts in the segment of the patient population in which continued uncertainty about treatment response exists.
Entities:
Keywords:
Depression; epidemiology; evidence-based psychiatry; research design and methods; treatment allocation
Authors: Madhukar H Trivedi; A John Rush; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Diane Warden; Louise Ritz; Grayson Norquist; Robert H Howland; Barry Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Kathy Shores-Wilson; Melanie M Biggs; G K Balasubramani; Maurizio Fava Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Koen Demyttenaere; Ronny Bruffaerts; Jose Posada-Villa; Isabelle Gasquet; Viviane Kovess; Jean Pierre Lepine; Matthias C Angermeyer; Sebastian Bernert; Giovanni de Girolamo; Pierluigi Morosini; Gabriella Polidori; Takehiko Kikkawa; Norito Kawakami; Yutaka Ono; Tadashi Takeshima; Hidenori Uda; Elie G Karam; John A Fayyad; Aimee N Karam; Zeina N Mneimneh; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Guilherme Borges; Carmen Lara; Ron de Graaf; Johan Ormel; Oye Gureje; Yucun Shen; Yueqin Huang; Mingyuan Zhang; Jordi Alonso; Josep Maria Haro; Gemma Vilagut; Evelyn J Bromet; Semyon Gluzman; Charles Webb; Ronald C Kessler; Kathleen R Merikangas; James C Anthony; Michael R Von Korff; Philip S Wang; Traolach S Brugha; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Sing Lee; Steven Heeringa; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Alan M Zaslavsky; T Bedirhan Ustun; Somnath Chatterji Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S M Sotsky; D R Glass; M T Shea; P A Pilkonis; J F Collins; I Elkin; J T Watkins; S D Imber; W R Leber; J Moyer Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1991-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Peter R Joyce; Janice M McKenzie; Janet D Carter; Alma M Rae; Suzanne E Luty; Christopher M A Frampton; Roger T Mulder Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Carly Cooper; Lisa Jones; Emma Dunn; Liz Forty; Sayeed Haque; Femi Oyebode; Nick Craddock; Ian Jones Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2007-03-12 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Madhukar H Trivedi; David W Morris; Ji-Yang Pan; Bruce D Grannemann; A John Rush Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.570
Authors: Mathias Harrer; Sophia H Adam; Harald Baumeister; Pim Cuijpers; Eirini Karyotaki; Randy P Auerbach; Ronald C Kessler; Ronny Bruffaerts; Matthias Berking; David D Ebert Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-12-26 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Christian A Webb; Zachary D Cohen; Courtney Beard; Marie Forgeard; Andrew D Peckham; Thröstur Björgvinsson Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2020-01
Authors: Jeffrey R Vittengl; Lee Anna Clark; Jasper A J Smits; Michael E Thase; Robin B Jarrett Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Kaiping Burrows; Jennifer L Stewart; Chase Antonacci; Rayus Kuplicki; Katie Thompson; Ashlee Taylor; T Kent Teague; Martin P Paulus Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Mario Maj; Dan J Stein; Gordon Parker; Mark Zimmerman; Giovanni A Fava; Marc De Hert; Koen Demyttenaere; Roger S McIntyre; Thomas Widiger; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Irving Hwang; Claire A Hoffmire; John F McCarthy; Maria V Petukhova; Anthony J Rosellini; Nancy A Sampson; Alexandra L Schneider; Paul A Bradley; Ira R Katz; Caitlin Thompson; Robert M Bossarte Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.035