PubMed · 15652086
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Louise Howard. 2004. Postnatal depression.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15652086/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: It has been recommended that onset of antidepressant action be assessed using survival analyses with assessments taken at least twice per week. However, such an assessment schedule is problematic to implement. The present study assessed the feasibility of comparing onset of action between treatments using a categorical repeated measures approach with a traditional assessment schedule. METHOD: Four scenarios representative of antidepressant clinical trials were created by varying mean improvements over time. Two assessment schedules were compared within the simulated 8-week studies: (i) 'frequent' assessment--16 postbaseline visits (twice-weekly for 8 weeks); (ii) 'traditional' assessment--5 postbaseline visits (Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8). Onset was defined as a 20 per cent improvement from baseline, and had to be sustained at all subsequent assessments. Differences between treatments were analysed with a survival analysis (KM = Kaplan-Meier product limit method) and a categorical mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis (MMRM-CAT). RESULTS: More frequent assessments resulted in small reductions in empirical standard errors compared with traditional assessments for both analytic methods. More frequent assessments altered estimates of treatment group differences in KM such that power was increased when the difference between treatments was increasing over time, but power decreased when the treatment difference decreased over time. More frequent assessments had a minimal effect on estimates of treatment group differences in MMRM-CAT. The MMRM-CAT analysis of data from a traditional assessment schedule provided adequate control of type I error, and had power comparable to or greater than that with KM analyses of data from either a frequent or a traditional assessment schedule. CONCLUSION: In the scenarios tested in this study it was reasonable to assess treatment group differences in onset of action with MMRM-CAT and a traditional assessment schedule. Additional research is needed to assess whether these findings hold in data with drop-out and across definitions of onset.
BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Mental Health's (NIMH) 1985 Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (TDCRP) reported that imipramine hydrochloride with clinical management (IMI-CM) was significantly more beneficial than placebo with clinical management (PLA-CM) for individuals undergoing treatment for depression. Unfortunately, in analyzing the NIMH TDCRP data, researchers ignored the potential effect that psychiatrists have on patient outcomes, thereby assuming that psychiatrists are equally effective. However, this assumption has yet to be supported empirically. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to examine psychiatrist effects in the NIMH TDCRP study and to compare the variation among psychiatrists to the variation between treatments. METHOD: Data from 112 patients [IMI-CM (n = 57, 9 psychiatrists); PLA-CM (n = 55, 9 psychiatrists)] from the NIMH TDCRP study were reanalyzed using a multi-level model. RESULTS: The proportion of variance in the BDI scores due to medication was 3.4% (p < .05), while the proportion of variance in BDI scores due to psychiatrists was 9.1% (p < .05). The proportion of variance in the HAM-D scores due to medication was 5.9% (p < .05), while the proportion of variance in HAM-D scores due to psychiatrist was 6.7% (p = .053). Therefore, the psychiatrist effects were greater than the treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, both psychiatrists and treatments contributed to outcomes in the treatment of depression. However, given that psychiatrists were responsible for more of the variance in outcomes it can be concluded that effective treatment psychiatrists can, in fact, augment the effects of the active ingredients of anti-depressant medication as well as placebo.
Depression is common in cancer patients, and this often remains undetected and untreated. Depression has been associated with poorer quality of life, in addition to increased impairment of immune response and poorer survival in cancer patients. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the efficacy of interventions for cancer patients with depression have failed to distinguish between caseness for depression and depressive symptoms. The findings from this systematic review show that there is limited trial data on the efficacy of prescribed antidepressants in reducing the incidence of major depression and depressive symptoms in cancer patients. Contrary to previous reviews that failed to distinguish between depressive symptoms and depression, this review found very little data from clinical trials (without the possibility of confounding factors) to demonstrate that psychotherapeutic interventions are effective in reducing depression in cancer patients. A number of small-scale, single-centre trials indicated that psychotherapeutic interventions (especially cognitive behavioural therapy) can have effects on depressive symptoms in cancer patients. However, given the methodological limitations of studies to date, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as implying lack of efficacy. In conclusion, there is a need for adequately powered studies of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic studies, which are targeted at cancer patients with a diagnosis of depression and include monitoring of the use of other pharmacological/psychotherapeutic and complementary and alternative medicine interventions.