Accurate meta-analytical assessment of "true antidepressant effects" needed.

F. Quitkin,P. McGrath,J. Stewart,D. Klein,D. Ross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.V66N0917A

2005-09-15

Abstract:Sir: In their recent article, Posternak and Zimmerman question whether there is a several-week delay in “true antidepressant effect.” They propose to address this issue by a meta-analysis to determine (1) “whether significant drugplacebo separation occurs during the first 2 weeks of treatment” and (2) “whether the timing of response to antidepressant medication and placebo is distinct.” Since the issue centers on “true antidepressant effects,” measures and analyses must address this salient point. There is no argument that antidepressant drugs can produce immediate effects (e.g., sedation, weight gain, dry mouth), but these are not “true antidepressant effects.” Rather, they are adventitious toxicities that are not on the causal path to mood normalization. The initial analyses focused on placebo-controlled trials lasting at least 4 weeks with at least biweekly (every other week) measures of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Various debatable exclusion criteria were used, but, for this discussion, these are beside the point. Their sample consisted of 47 studies. The discussion is obscured by a reliance on percentage reductions in HAM-D scores. The HAM-D is ordinal, and percentage change is not appropriate for such scales. Further, floor effects are ignored. The simplest analysis would be to take the reported HAM-D scores at baseline and 2 weeks within each study and develop a contrast for drug versus placebo by any one of several standard methods (e.g., Wilcoxon signed rank test) and then agglomerate these values by standard meta-analytic methods. If there were no difference, that would end the discussion. If there were a difference, it would still be necessary to show that it was relevant to “true antidepressant effect.” The authors’ actual analyses are difficult to understand. Establishing a mean baseline score and difference scores across all studies that account for sample size differences, as well as drug only, seems needlessly complex and incorporates many shaky assumptions about trial parallelism. Whatever is meant by “drug-placebo differences, after adjusting for the fewer number of subjects in weeks 5 and 6” when presenting drug-placebo differences for weeks 1 and 2 is entirely obscure. The distinction between “true antidepressant” and other drug effects is only attempted by the authors’ limiting their analysis to what they consider nonsedating antidepressants. Peculiarly, they do not exclude paroxetine, so their judgment about nonsedative medication is arguable. In any case, this analysis does not speak to the manifold other irrelevant drug effects. They ignore even the confounding soporific issue for their Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) analysis. Nor do they make any effort to see if weekly CGI responses represent transient fluctuations or maintained effects, as the Columbia group has. We conclude that, to address the problem of the onset of “true antidepressant effects,” such a meta-analysis is inappropriate.