PubMed · 8004923
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Zetin, J Hansen. 1994. Rational antidepressant selection.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8004923/
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.
In this pilot study we assessed the efficacy of olanzapine as monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder, without psychosis. We also demonstrated the in vivo 5-HT2A receptor occupancy of olanzapine using positron emission tomography. An open-label prospective 6-week study design with 14 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study were enrolled from the general community of the St. Louis metropolitan area. All patients met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder without psychosis, had a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) score >18 and were between the ages of 18 and 65. The primary measure of efficacy was the change in HAMD 17 total score from baseline to endpoint. The data were collected between 1998 and 2004. There was a significant reduction in the HAMD17 scores from baseline to endpoint. Half the patients (n=6) showed > or =50% reduction in their HAMD17 scores. This study points to the potential of olanzapine as a therapeutic agent for the treatment of major depressive disorder without psychosis.
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.