Magnitude of change with antidepressants and placebo in antidepressant clinical trials using structured, taped and appraised rater interviews (SIGMA-RAPS) compared to trials using traditional semi-structured interviews.

RATIONALE: Although newer interview methods such as Structured Interview Guide for the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA; MADRS) with audiotaping and Rater Applied Performance Scale (RAPS) appraisal have been introduced to improve reliability of ratings in antidepressant clinical trials, there is limited evidence that these methods actually improve trial outcome. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study uis to evaluate outcome in four similarly designed trials of two recently approved antidepressants: two trials randomly used taped SIGMA interviews with RAPS appraisal and two trials used traditional semi-structured MADRS interviews. METHODS: We reviewed data from patients who were screened (N = 243) and randomized (N = 148), evaluating the magnitude of change with placebo and antidepressants on mean total MADRS score. RESULTS: Depressed patients assigned to placebo in trials using taped SIGMA interviews with RAPS appraisal had a significantly larger MADRS change score (M = -11.5 ± 12.7) compared to patients assigned to placebo in trials using traditional semi-structured interviews (-5.4 ± 8.9; F(df = 1.57) = 5.58, p = 0.022). The error variance was also significantly larger in the placebo arm of trials using SIGMA interviews (F = 5.43, p = 0.023). Depressed patients assigned to antidepressants had similar outcome in all of the four trials. CONCLUSION: The recently suggested modifications in obtaining clinical data in antidepressant trials such as taped SIGMA interviews with RAPS rating appraisals may in fact result in a higher magnitude of placebo response and a lower magnitude of antidepressant-placebo differences compared to the traditional methods of collecting clinical data. These results were unexpected and indicate the necessity to test new methods prospectively, no matter how intuitively sensible they seem, prior to their implementation.

Magnitude of placebo response and response variance in antidepressant clinical trials using structured, taped and appraised rater interviews compared to traditional rating interviews.

The high failure rate of antidepressant clinical trials is due in part to a high magnitude of placebo response and considerable variance in placebo response. In some recent trials enhanced patient interview techniques consisting of Structured Interview Guide for the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA) interviews, audiotaping of patient interviews and 'central' appraisal with Rater Applied Performance Scale (RAPS) criteria have been implemented in the hope of increasing reliability and thus reducing the placebo response. However, the data supporting this rationale for a change in patient interview technique are sparse. We analyzed data from depressed patients assigned to placebo in antidepressant clinical trials conducted at a single research site between 2008 and 2012. Three trials included 34 depressed patients undergoing SIGMA depression interviews with taping and RAPS appraisal and 4 trials included 128 depressed patients using traditional interview methods. Using patient level data we assessed the mean decrease in total MADRS scores and the variability of the decrease in MADRS scores in trials using SIGMA interviews versus trials using traditional interviews. Mean decrease in total MADRS score was significantly higher in the 3 trials that used SIGMA interviews compared to the 4 trials using traditional interviews (M = 13.0 versus 8.3, t(df = 160) = 2.04, p = 0.047). Furthermore, trials using SIGMA had a larger magnitude of response variance based on Levene's test for equality of variance (SD = 12.3 versus 9.4, F = 7.3, p = 0.008). The results of our study suggest that enhanced patient interview techniques such as SIGMA interviews, audiotaping and RAPS appraisal may not result in the intended effect of reducing the magnitude of placebo response and placebo variance.

Comparative mortality risk in adult patients with schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder participating in psychopharmacology clinical trials.

IMPORTANCE: There is concern that increased mortality risk among patients with psychiatric illness may be worsened by psychopharmacological agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess mortality risk among adult patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder participating in clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market and to evaluate if psychopharmacological agents worsen this risk. DATA SOURCES: The FDA Summary Basis of Approval (SBA) reports of new drug applications and supplemental applications for 28 psychopharmacological agents approved between 1990 and 2011. STUDY SELECTION: The FDA SBA reports detailing exposure data from acute placebo-controlled trials and safety extension studies including 92,542 patients from 47 adult drug approval programs for treatment of schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and SBA reports on combination and maintenance therapy programs for treatments of bipolar disorder. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We reviewed and synthesized mortality data from SBA reports that combined mortality rates across the clinical trials, including information on patient exposure years (PEY) for active treatments and placebo for individual indications. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall mortality rate per 100,000 PEY in relation to the psychiatric diagnosis of the patients participating in psychopharmacology clinical trials. Also, the overall mortality rates using PEY technique among patients assigned to psychopharmacological agents or placebo were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, mortality risk was high and significantly associated with psychiatric diagnosis (χ²4 = 1760; P < .001). Compared with the general adult population, patients with schizophrenia had the highest mortality risk (3.8-fold increase), followed by patients with depression (3.15-fold increase) and bipolar disorder (3.0-fold increase). The mortality risk was not increased when patients were assigned to psychotropic agents rather than placebo except for heterocyclic antidepressants. Suicide accounted for 109 of all 265 deaths (41.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These data suggest that increased mortality rates reported in population studies are detectable among adult patients with psychiatric illnesses participating in psychopharmacological trials. Furthermore, 3- to 4-month exposure to modern psychotropic agents, such as atypical antipsychotic agents, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors does not worsen this risk. Given the inherent limitations of the FDA SBA reports, further research is needed to support firm conclusions.

A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.

BACKGROUND: Although previous meta-analyses have examined effects of antidepressants, psychotherapy, and alternative therapies for depression, the efficacy of these treatments alone and in combination has not been systematically compared. We hypothesized that the differences between approved depression treatments and controls would be small. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The authors first reviewed data from Food and Drug Administration Summary Basis of Approval reports of 62 pivotal antidepressant trials consisting of data from 13,802 depressed patients. This was followed by a systematic review of data from 115 published trials evaluating efficacy of psychotherapies and alternative therapies for depression. The published depression trials consisted of 10,310 depressed patients. We assessed the percentage symptom reduction experienced by the patients based on treatment assignment. Overall, antidepressants led to greater symptom reduction compared to placebo among both unpublished FDA data and published trials (F = 38.5, df = 239, p<0.001). In the published trials we noted that the magnitude of symptom reduction with active depression treatments compared to controls was significantly larger when raters evaluating treatment effects were un-blinded compared to the trials with blinded raters (F = 2.17, df = 313, p<0.05). In the blinded trials, the combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy provided a slight advantage over antidepressants (p = 0.027) and psychotherapy (p = 0.022) alone. The magnitude of symptom reduction was greater with psychotherapies compared to placebo (p = 0.019), treatment-as-usual (p = 0.012) and waiting-list (p<0.001). Differences were not seen with psychotherapy compared to antidepressants, alternative therapies or active intervention controls. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the combination of psychotherapy and antidepressants for depression may provide a slight advantage whereas antidepressants alone and psychotherapy alone are not significantly different from alternative therapies or active intervention controls. These data suggest that type of treatment offered is less important than getting depressed patients involved in an active therapeutic program. Future research should consider whether certain patient profiles might justify a specific treatment modality.

Efficacy and safety of anti-manic agents in children and adults.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric trials in depression have led to major concerns about potential suicide inducing properties of antidepressants and doubts about their efficacy. Several trials of anti-manic agents in children were recently conducted and regulatory reviews of the data have become available. METHODS: We acquired pediatric and adult anti-mania agent Medical and Statistical Reports from the U.S. FDA. We used these to evaluate efficacy, mortality, severe adverse events and suicidality. RESULTS: The six pediatric studies enrolled 1,228 patients (828 drug/460 placebo). The seven adult drug approval programs enrolled 4,228 patients (2,356 drug/1,932 placebo). Mean mania rating scale baseline (pediatric=30.3/adult=30.3) scores were identical, and drug-placebo difference scores (pediatric=5.8/ adult=5.2) were not significantly different. There were no reported deaths during the pediatric trials. During the 23 adult trials there were 8 deaths (3 in drug group/5 in placebo group), a mortality rate of 3,290/100,000 patient exposure years. The proportion of patients that reported severe adverse events was slightly lower for the pediatric (4.2%) as compared to adult (4.7%) trials. A higher proportion of children (5/460, 1.1%) than adult (7/2,012, 0.3%) patients assigned to placebo reported suicidality, χ2(df=1)=4.2, p=0.04. We did not find evidence of increased suicidality for children assigned to drug (7/828, 0.8%) as compared to the children assigned to placebo (5/460, 1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest remarkable similarity between the outcomes of pediatric and adult trials for bipolar mania. The therapeutic profile of these anti-manic agents in children is notably better than that for some other psychotropic drugs, for example, antidepressants.

Differential pattern of response in mood symptoms and suicide risk measures in severely ill depressed patients assigned to citalopram with placebo or citalopram combined with lithium: role of lithium levels.

The assumption that antidepressants may reduce suicide risk by reducing depressive symptoms is not based on data. Further, it is unclear if the retrospectively based anti-suicidal effects of lithium can be prospectively evaluated using lithium as an augmenting agent to antidepressants. To verify our hypothesis, we designed and conducted an exploratory proof of concept trial of four weeks duration using a randomized, double-blind, parallel group method. Forty patients were assigned to citalopram + lithium and 40 were assigned to citalopram + placebo. The primary dependent measures were the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale (S-STS) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The reduction of S-STS scores was large (43%) and twice that seen in MADRS scores (25%) among the eighty patients included in the trial. Both response (χ(2) = 8.8, p < 0.01) and remission (χ(2) = 4.6, p = 0.03) rates showed similar patterns. There were no significant differences in mean total S-STS change scores among patients assigned to citalopram with placebo (4.8 ± 5.1) and patients assigned to citalopram with lithium (5.1 ± 5.2). When explored further, a subgroup of the patients assigned to citalopram and lithium achieved therapeutic serum levels and had significantly higher S-STS remission rates (45% compared to 19%, p < 0.05). There were no deaths by suicide or other causes indicating that trials enrolling acutely suicidal patients are feasible. These results suggest that citalopram may have a direct therapeutic effect on suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Further, lithium when used in therapeutic doses may augment such effects. These data warrant further exploration of lithium and an antidepressant combination for anti-suicidal effects.

Antidepressant-placebo differences in 16 clinical trials over 10 years at a single site: role of baseline severity.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant-placebo differences observed in randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials have always been relatively small and have further declined during the past three decades. During this same time, a decrease in patient severity of symptoms at baseline has occurred. The current study was designed to examine antidepressant-placebo difference scores and baseline severity of depression over a 10-year period in a sample of depressed patients enrolled at a single clinical trial site. METHODS: We analyzed data from a total of 462 patients who participated in 16 clinical trials at the Northwest Clinical Research Center, Bellevue, WA between 1995 and 2004. NWCRC collaborated with study sponsors to unblind the randomization codes from 16 trials for 293 patients assigned to antidepressants and 169 patients assigned to placebo. RESULTS: The mean total baseline HAM-D17 scores were relatively high and stable (mean of 24.7, range 22.2-27.4). The outcome, as measured by changes in mean total HAM-D17 scores between antidepressant and placebo, were similar and were not related to the year of the conduct of the trial. Furthermore, the baseline severity of depressive symptoms, and BMI played a significant role in the outcome with antidepressants and not with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that no diminution of drug-placebo difference occurs over time when baseline severity remains constant. As such, they support the importance of depression severity as a determinant of antidepressant-placebo difference.

Are the colors and shapes of current psychotropics designed to maximize the placebo response?

RATIONALE: Patient expectations are an important aspect of the placebo response. Color and shape of a medication lead to perceptions that an agent is stimulating or calming, strong or weak. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the degree to which central nervous system medications match the perceived drug action and thereby harness the placebo response. METHODS: We consulted the 2009 Physicians' Desk Reference and recorded the formulation and color of each referenced dose of central nervous system therapeutics approved for sale in the USA. On the basis of the expectations they engender, orange, yellow, and red pills were categorized stimulating; green, blue, and purple pills calming. White and gray pills were considered neutral. RESULTS: The majority of the 176 unique doses that were included in the study were in tablet (55%) and capsule (33%) form. Stimulants (75%) were the only drug category primarily formulated as capsules. Of the 176 unique doses included, 43% were stimulating, 23% calming, 23% neutral, and 12% were a formulation other than pill or capsule. There were no instances in which over 50% of the pills of an indication were stimulating or calming in color. DISCUSSION: Our study did not confirm the hypothesis that pharmaceutical companies color and formulate the shape of drugs to enhance the treatment response. In several instances, each approved dose of a given medication was a different color, and the majority of doses were in tablet form. Further research into the effect of different colors and formulations of medications on perceptions and efficacy evaluations should be considered.