TY - JOUR
T1 - Reevaluating the efficacy and predictability of antidepressant treatments
T2 - A symptom clustering approach
AU - Chekroud, Adam M.
AU - Gueorguieva, Ralitza
AU - Krumholz, Harlan M.
AU - Trivedi, Madhukar H.
AU - Krystal, John H.
AU - McCarthy, Gregory
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported in part by Yale University; The William K. Warren Foundation; grants 1UH2TR000960-01 and 5ULTR000142-08 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science; the Department of Veterans Affairs (National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder); grants P50AA12870 and M01RR00125 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; and grant UL1 RR024139 from the Yale Center for Clinical Investigation.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2017 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/4/1
Y1 - 2017/4/1
N2 - IMPORTANCE Depressive severity is typically measured according to total scores on questionnaires that include a diverse range of symptoms despite convincing evidence that depression is not a unitary construct. When evaluated according to aggregate measurements, treatment efficacy is generally modest and differences in efficacy between antidepressant therapies are small. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy of antidepressant treatments on empirically defined groups of symptoms and examine the replicability of these groups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patient-reported data on patients with depression from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR∗D) trial (n = 4039) were used to identify clusters of symptoms in a depressive symptom checklist. The findings were then replicated using the Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes (CO-MED) trial (n = 640). Mixed-effects regression analysis was then performed to determine whether observed symptom clusters have differential response trajectories using intent-to-treat data from both trials (n = 4706) along with 7 additional placebo and active-comparator phase 3 trials of duloxetine (n = 2515). Finally, outcomes for each cluster were estimated separately using machine-learning approaches. The study was conducted from October 28, 2014, to May 19, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Twelve items from the self-reported Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR) scale and 14 items from the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale. Higher scores on the measures indicate greater severity of the symptoms. RESULTS Of the 4706 patients included in the first analysis, 1722 (36.6%) were male; mean (SD) age was 41.2 (13.3) years. Of the 2515 patients included in the second analysis, 855 (34.0%) were male; mean age was 42.65 (12.17) years. Three symptom clusters in the QIDS-SR scale were identified at baseline in STAR∗D. This 3-cluster solution was replicated in CO-MED and was similar for the HAM-D scale. Antidepressants in general (8 of 9 treatments) were more effective for core emotional symptoms than for sleep or atypical symptoms. Differences in efficacy between drugs were often greater than the difference in efficacy between treatments and placebo. For example, high-dose duloxetine outperformed escitalopram in treating core emotional symptoms (effect size, 2.3 HAM-D points during 8 weeks, 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.1; P <.001), but escitalopram was not significantly different from placebo (effect size, 0.03 HAM-D points; 95% CI,-0.7 to 0.8; P =.94). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Two common checklists used to measure depressive severity can produce statistically reliable clusters of symptoms. These clusters differ in their responsiveness to treatment both within and across different antidepressant medications. Selecting the best drug for a given cluster may have a bigger benefit than that gained by use of an active compound vs a placebo.
AB - IMPORTANCE Depressive severity is typically measured according to total scores on questionnaires that include a diverse range of symptoms despite convincing evidence that depression is not a unitary construct. When evaluated according to aggregate measurements, treatment efficacy is generally modest and differences in efficacy between antidepressant therapies are small. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy of antidepressant treatments on empirically defined groups of symptoms and examine the replicability of these groups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patient-reported data on patients with depression from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR∗D) trial (n = 4039) were used to identify clusters of symptoms in a depressive symptom checklist. The findings were then replicated using the Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes (CO-MED) trial (n = 640). Mixed-effects regression analysis was then performed to determine whether observed symptom clusters have differential response trajectories using intent-to-treat data from both trials (n = 4706) along with 7 additional placebo and active-comparator phase 3 trials of duloxetine (n = 2515). Finally, outcomes for each cluster were estimated separately using machine-learning approaches. The study was conducted from October 28, 2014, to May 19, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Twelve items from the self-reported Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR) scale and 14 items from the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale. Higher scores on the measures indicate greater severity of the symptoms. RESULTS Of the 4706 patients included in the first analysis, 1722 (36.6%) were male; mean (SD) age was 41.2 (13.3) years. Of the 2515 patients included in the second analysis, 855 (34.0%) were male; mean age was 42.65 (12.17) years. Three symptom clusters in the QIDS-SR scale were identified at baseline in STAR∗D. This 3-cluster solution was replicated in CO-MED and was similar for the HAM-D scale. Antidepressants in general (8 of 9 treatments) were more effective for core emotional symptoms than for sleep or atypical symptoms. Differences in efficacy between drugs were often greater than the difference in efficacy between treatments and placebo. For example, high-dose duloxetine outperformed escitalopram in treating core emotional symptoms (effect size, 2.3 HAM-D points during 8 weeks, 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.1; P <.001), but escitalopram was not significantly different from placebo (effect size, 0.03 HAM-D points; 95% CI,-0.7 to 0.8; P =.94). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Two common checklists used to measure depressive severity can produce statistically reliable clusters of symptoms. These clusters differ in their responsiveness to treatment both within and across different antidepressant medications. Selecting the best drug for a given cluster may have a bigger benefit than that gained by use of an active compound vs a placebo.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017596150&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017596150&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0025
DO - 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0025
M3 - Article
C2 - 28241180
AN - SCOPUS:85017596150
SN - 2168-622X
VL - 74
SP - 370
EP - 378
JO - JAMA Psychiatry
JF - JAMA Psychiatry
IS - 4
ER -