The generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials to routine psychiatric out-patient practice
- 16 November 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Psychological Medicine
- Vol. 41 (7), 1353-1363
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291710002175
Abstract
BackgroundGeneralizability of antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) to daily practice is questioned because of their very stringent patient selection. This study aims to determine eligibility for AETs of out-patients suffering from major depression in a routine out-patient setting and investigates influence of eligibility on treatment outcome.MethodData collection (n=1653) was performed through routine outcome monitoring by independent trained research nurses. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology, short Dutch version were used for diagnostic assessment and personality pathology screening. The Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used for assessment of baseline severity and treatment outcome. Eligibility was assessed by stepwise application of commonly used exclusion criteria. Influence of eligibility on treatment outcome was investigated in a subsample of the 1653 patients who had at least one follow-up assessment (n=626). Eligible and non-eligible patients were compared on proportion of response (50% reduction) and remission on MADRS (MADRS⩽10).ResultsAltogether, 17–25% of the patients were eligible for AETs. The most common reasons for exclusion would be ‘not meeting minimum baseline severity’ and ‘presence of co-morbid Axis I disorder’. Eligible and non-eligible patients did not differ in treatment outcome. Only ‘meeting the minimum baseline severity’ is associated with remission.ConclusionsThe majority of ‘real life’ out-patients are not eligible for AETs. However, the influence of eligibility on treatment outcome seems to be small. This suggests that stringent patient selection by eligibility criteria is not the major reason for lack of generalizability of AETs. Exclusion of less severely depressed patients from the analyses resulted in better treatment outcome. Milder depression is highly prevalent in daily practice and more research into treatment effectiveness in milder depression is warranted.Keywords
This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit:
- Differential efficacy of escitalopram and nortriptyline on dimensional measures of depressionThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2009
- The STAR*D trial: the 300 lb gorilla is in the room, but does it block all the light?Evidence-Based Mental Health, 2008
- Measuring depression: comparison and integration of three scales in the GENDEP studyPsychological Medicine, 2007
- Review: A gentle introduction to imputation of missing valuesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- The Montgomery Äsberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: A comparison of measuresEuropean Neuropsychopharmacology, 2006
- Efficacy and Tolerability of Reboxetine Compared with CitalopramJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2006
- Mirtazapine Orally Disintegrating Tablets Versus Venlafaxine Extended ReleaseJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2006
- A Reevaluation of the Exclusion Criteria Used in Antidepressant Efficacy TrialsAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 2002
- Depression rating scales can be related to each other by simple equationsInternational Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 1998
- A COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL RATING SCALEActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 1978