Statistically Significant Antidepressant-Placebo Differences on Subjective Symptom-Rating Scales Do Not Prove That the Drugs Work: Effect Size and Method Bias Matter!

Michael Pascal Hengartner,Martin Plöderl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00517

IF: 4.7

2018-01-01

Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract:OPINION article Front. Psychiatry, 17 October 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00517

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Do Antidepressants Work? Statistical Significance Versus Clinical Benefits

Blair T. Johnson,Irving Kirsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2008.00286.x

2008-01-01

Significance

Abstract:Abstract Ours has been called the Prozac generation but, earlier this year, newspaper front page headlines screamed “Antidepressants don't work”. Our authors' reanalysis of drug trials was widely reported as implying that antidepressant drugs such as Prozac are overprescribed and useless. The truth, as Blair T. Johnson and Irving Kirsch explain, is more complex, and more interesting.
Kirsch Et Al.'s (2008) Calculations Are Correct: Reconsidering Fountoulakis & Möller's Re-Analysis of the Kirsch Data

Tania B. Huedo‐Medina,Blair T. Johnson,Irving Kirsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1461145711001878

2012-01-01

Abstract:Our meta-analysis examining the efficacy of antidepressant medication (Kirsch et al. 2008), based on trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for antidepressant drug approval, concluded that clinically significant improvement in depression attributable to antidepressants as opposed to placebo appeared only for samples with exceptionally severe depression. Our criterion for clinical significance was that used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which establishes treatment guidelines for the National Health Service in the UK. Published critiques of our statistical approach (e.g. Horder et al . 2010; Huf et al. 2011) as well as the clinical implications of our findings (e.g. Moller & Broich, 2010) were all items raised in online commentaries when our article was published and we responded to these criticisms (Huedo-Medina et al. 2008; Johnson et al. 2008). Although disagreement has generally centred on interpretations of the data, Fountoulakis & Moller (2010) re-analysed the data and claimed that they had discovered ‘important flaws in our calculations’, although they found the same overall, standardized mean difference effect size ( d ) that we had, which was substantially below the NICE criterion for clinical significance. Their methods obtained weighted mean improvement scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) that were different from ours. Given the attention that our original analysis has received, we believe it is important that readers know which results are accurate. We first present in greater detail the methods we had used in obtaining those aspects of the results that are in dispute, along with the justification for using those methods. Next, we examine the methods used by Fountoulakis & Moller in their attempted replication. We followed conventional meta-analytical procedures to summarize the FDA data we used. Of particular note are the weighting of change scores on the HAMD within …
Informant Effect on Placebo Response in Mental Disorders

Toshi A. Furukawa,Pim Cuijpers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2862

2024-11-07

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:To the Editor We read with great interest the recent article by Bschor et al. Although the article highlighted the differences in the degree of placebo response, ie, the observed change on placebo, across different psychiatric disorders (but not placebo effect, ie, the effect due to placebo as compared with no treatment), the metric they used may not have been optimal. They used the so-called pre-post effect size, which they explained as "Cohen d for within-participant designs using mean SD, dav."

psychiatry
Meta-Analysis of Placebo Response in Adult Antidepressant Trials

Fenghua Li,Madeeha Nasir,Baris Olten,Michael H. Bloch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-019-00662-y

2019-10-01

CNS Drugs

Abstract:BackgroundRoughly 80% of the symptom improvement experienced on antidepressants in clinical trials is also observed in the placebo comparison group. Understanding the correlates of placebo improvement and response is important to designing efficient and successful trials of future antidepressants.ObjectiveThe objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the magnitude of placebo symptom improvement and placebo response rates in second-generation antidepressant trials of depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.MethodsWe searched PubMed on 10 June, 2016, with no date or language limits, to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials of second-generation antidepressants in adults with depression, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to examine the magnitude of placebo symptom improvement using standardized mean difference and placebo response rate. Stratified subgroup analysis and meta-regression were utilized to examine the effect of diagnostic indication and correlates of placebo symptom improvement.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 164 trials involving 19,591 participants. Magnitude of placebo improvement and placebo response rates varied significantly between diagnostic indications. The magnitude of placebo improvement was much lower in obsessive-compulsive disorder (standardized mean difference = 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.36–0.79) than in depression (standardized mean difference = 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.12–1.32) or anxiety (standardized mean difference = 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.12) trials. There was a large amount of heterogeneity in placebo improvement between studies (Q = 899, df = 110, p < 0.001, I2 = 88%). A greater number of study sites and a later publication year were associated with a greater magnitude of placebo improvement and response rate. Presence of a placebo lead-in and absence of non-US sites were associated with a reduced magnitude of placebo improvement. Trial duration was positively associated with the magnitude of placebo improvement in depression trials but negatively associated with the magnitude of placebo improvement in anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder trials.ConclusionsMagnitude of placebo symptom improvement differed significantly based on diagnostic indication with improvement being significantly less in obsessive-compulsive disorder than anxiety and depression. Some trial characteristics were associated with a greater magnitude of placebo improvement in trials across disorders but others were disorder specific.

pharmacology & pharmacy,psychiatry,clinical neurology
The overestimation of the effect sizes of psychotherapies for depression in waitlist controlled trials: a meta-analytic comparison with usual care controlled trials

Pim Cuijpers,Clara Miguel,Mathias Harrer,Marketa Ciharova,Eirini Karyotaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796024000611

2024-11-07

Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences

Abstract:Aims There is considerable evidence that waiting list (WL) control groups overestimate the effect sizes of psychotherapies for depression. It is not clear, however, what are the exact causes for this overestimation. We decided to conduct a meta-analytic study to compare trials on psychotherapy for depression with a WL control group against trials with a care-as-usual (CAU) control group. Methods We used an existing meta-analytic database of randomized trials comparing psychological treatments of adult depression with control groups and selected trials using a WL or a CAU control group. We used subgroup and meta-regression analyses to examine differences in effect sizes between WL and CAU controlled trials. Results We included 333 randomized controlled trials (472 comparisons; total number participants: 41,480), 141 with a WL and 195 with a CAU control group (3 included both). We found several significant differences between WL and CAU controlled trials (in type of therapy examined, treatment format, recency, target group, recruitment strategy, number of treatment arms and number of depression outcome measures). The overall effect size indicating the difference between treatment and control at post-test for all comparisons was g = 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71; 0.84) with high heterogeneity (I 2 = 84; 95% CI: 82; 85). A highly significant difference was observed between studies with a CAU control group (g = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.55; 0.71; I 2 = 85; 95% CI: 83; 86) and studies with a WL (g = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85; 1.04; I 2 = 80; 95% CI: 78; 82; p for difference < 0.001). This difference remained significant in all sensitivity analyses, including a meta-regression analysis in which we adjusted for all differences in characteristics of studies with a WL versus CAU control group. We also found that pre-post effect sizes in WL control conditions (g = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.28; 0.46) were significantly smaller than change within CAU conditions (g = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50; 0.78). We found few indications that pre-post effect sizes within therapy conditions differed between WL and CAU controlled trials. Conclusions WL control conditions considerably overestimate the effect sizes of psychological treatments, compared to trials using CAU control conditions. This overestimation is probably caused by a smaller improvement within the WL condition compared to the improvement in the CAU condition. WL control conditions should be avoided in randomized trials examining psychological treatments of adult depression.

psychiatry
Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration

Irving Kirsch,Brett J. Deacon,Tania B. Huedo-Medina,Alan Scoboria,Thomas J. Moore,Blair T. Johnson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

2008-01-01

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance. Yet, the efficacy of the antidepressants may also depend on the severity of initial depression scores. The purpose of this analysis is to establish the relation of baseline severity and antidepressant efficacy using a relevant dataset of published and unpublished clinical trials.METHODS AND FINDINGS:We obtained data on all clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the licensing of the four new-generation antidepressants for which full datasets were available. We then used meta-analytic techniques to assess linear and quadratic effects of initial severity on improvement scores for drug and placebo groups and on drug-placebo difference scores. Drug-placebo differences increased as a function of initial severity, rising from virtually no difference at moderate levels of initial depression to a relatively small difference for patients with very severe depression, reaching conventional criteria for clinical significance only for patients at the upper end of the very severely depressed category. Meta-regression analyses indicated that the relation of baseline severity and improvement was curvilinear in drug groups and showed a strong, negative linear component in placebo groups.CONCLUSIONS:Drug-placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication.
Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review

Nathan T. M. Huneke,Jay Amin,David S. Baldwin,Alessio Bellato,Valerie Brandt,Samuel R. Chamberlain,Christoph U. Correll,Luis Eudave,Matthew Garner,Corentin J. Gosling,Catherine M. Hill,Ruihua Hou,Oliver D. Howes,Konstantinos Ioannidis,Ole Köhler-Forsberg,Lucia Marzulli,Claire Reed,Julia M. A. Sinclair,Satneet Singh,Marco Solmi,Samuele Cortese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02638-x

IF: 11

2024-06-25

Molecular Psychiatry

Abstract:There is a growing literature exploring the placebo response within specific mental disorders, but no overarching quantitative synthesis of this research has analyzed evidence across mental disorders. We carried out an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological treatments (pharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) for mental disorders. We explored whether placebo effect size differs across distinct disorders, and the correlates of increased placebo effects. Based on a pre-registered protocol, we searched Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge up to 23.10.2022 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses reporting placebo effect sizes in psychopharmacological or neurostimulation RCTs. Twenty meta-analyses, summarising 1,691 RCTs involving 261,730 patients, were included. Placebo effect size varied, and was large in alcohol use disorder ( g = 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09]), depression ( g = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06, 1.15]), restless legs syndrome ( g = 1.41, 95% CI [1.25, 1.56]), and generalized anxiety disorder ( d = 1.85, 95% CI [1.61, 2.09]). Placebo effect size was small-to-medium in obsessive-compulsive disorder ( d = 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.41]), primary insomnia ( g = 0.35, 95% CI [0.28, 0.42]), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (standardized mean change = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.44]). Correlates of larger placebo response in multiple mental disorders included later publication year (opposite finding for ADHD), younger age, more trial sites, larger sample size, increased baseline severity, and larger active treatment effect size. Most (18 of 20) meta-analyses were judged 'low' quality as per AMSTAR-2. Placebo effect sizes varied substantially across mental disorders. Future research should explore the sources of this variation. We identified important gaps in the literature, with no eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses of placebo response in stress-related disorders, eating disorders, behavioural addictions, or bipolar mania.

biochemistry & molecular biology,neurosciences,psychiatry
Combining endpoint and change data did not affect the summary standardised mean difference in pairwise and network meta-analyses: An empirical study in depression

Edoardo G Ostinelli,Orestis Efthimiou,Yan Luo,Clara Miguel,Eirini Karyotaki,Pim Cuijpers,Toshi A Furukawa,Georgia Salanti,Andrea Cipriani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1719

Abstract:When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR -0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression.
Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of antidepressants: a cross-sectional survey

Sahker,E.,Furukawa,T. A.,Luo,Y.,Ferreira,M. L.,Okazaki,K.,Chevance,A.,Markham,S.,Ede,R.,Leucht,S.,Cipriani,A.,Salanti,G.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2023-300919

2024-01-10

Evidence-Based Mental Health

Abstract:Background Approximately 30% of patients experience substantial improvement in depression after 2 months without treatment, and 45% with antidepressants. The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) refers to an intervention's smallest beneficial effect over a comparison patients deem worthwhile given treatment burdens (harms, expenses and inconveniences), but is undetermined for antidepressants. Objective Estimating the SWD of commonly prescribed antidepressants for depression compared to no treatment. Methods The SWD was estimated as a patient-required difference in response rates between antidepressants and no treatment after 2 months. An online cross-sectional survey using Prolific, MQ Mental Health and Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing services in the UK and USA between October 2022 and January 2023 garnered participants (N=935) that were a mean age of 44.1 (SD=13.9) and 66% women (n=617). Findings Of 935 participants, 124 reported moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms but were not in treatment, 390 were in treatment and 495 reported absent-to-mild symptoms with or without treatment experiences. The median SWD was a 20% (IQR=10–30%) difference in response rates for people with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, not in treatment, and willing to consider antidepressants, and 25% (IQR=10–35%) for the full sample. Conclusions Our observed SWDs mean that the current 15% antidepressant benefit over no treatment was sufficient for one in three people to accept antidepressants given the burdens, but two in three expected greater treatment benefits. Implications While a minority may be satisfied with the best currently available antidepressants, more effective and/or less burdensome medications are needed, with more attention given to patient perspectives.

psychiatry
Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis

Stefan Leucht,Spyridon Siafis,Johannes Schneider-Thoma,Aran Tajika,Josef Priller,John M. Davis,Toshi A. Furukawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-024-00442-8

2024-02-16

Schizophrenia

Abstract:A recent meta-epidemiological study did not reveal major differences between the results of blinded and open randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). Fewer patients may consent to double-blind RCTs than to open RCTs, compromising generalisability, making this question very important. However, the issue has not been addressed in schizophrenia. We used a database of randomised, acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials. Whenever at least one open and one blinded RCT was available for a comparison of two drugs, we contrasted the results by random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup tests. The primary outcome was overall symptoms as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, supplemented by seven secondary efficacy and side-effect outcomes. We also examined whether open RCTs were biased in favour of more recently introduced antipsychotics, less efficacious or more prone to side-effects antipsychotics, and pharmaceutical sponsors. 183 RCTs (155 blinded and 28 open) with 34715 participants comparing two active drugs were available. The results did not suggest general differences between open and blinded RCTs, which examined two active drugs. Only 12 out of 122 subgroup tests had a p -value below 0.1, four below 0.05, and if a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests had been applied, only one would have been significant. There were some exceptions which, however, did not always confirm the originally hypothesized direction of bias. Due to the relatively small number of open RCTs, our analysis is exploratory, but this fundamental question should be given more scientific attention. Currently, open RCTs should be excluded from meta-analyses, at least in sensitivity analyses.

psychiatry
EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: Efficacy of psilocybin for treating symptoms of depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1025

2024-05-08

BMJ

Abstract:This notice alerts readers to an error with this paper by Athina-Marina Metaxa and Mike Clarke (BMJ 2024;385:e078084. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078084, published 01 May 2024). The journal and the authors are investigating the problem. The study analysed data from randomised trials of psilocybin for the treatment of depression in adults. A methodological concern has been raised about an error in the calculation of standardised mean differences. This is likely to have overestimated the benefits of psilocybin. The authors are reviewing and responding to the error and its implications for the findings and conclusions of the paper. The authors' response will be reviewed by The BMJ who will decide what further action is needed.

medicine, general & internal
Do side effects of antidepressants impact efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale? A pooled patient-level analysis

Fredrik Hieronymus,Alexander Lisinski,Elias Eriksson,Søren Dinesen Østergaard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01364-0

2021-04-27

Translational Psychiatry

Abstract:Abstract The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) measures symptoms that may overlap with common antidepressant side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction), thus making it possible that side effects of antidepressant treatment are erroneously rated as symptoms of depression, and vice versa. This study uses patient-level data from previously conducted antidepressant treatment trials to assess whether side effect ratings co-vary with HDRS-17 ratings. Data from all HDRS-17-rated, industry-sponsored pre- and post-marketing trials ( n = 4647) comparing the serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, to placebo and/or to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor were pooled; three studies, which utilised sub-therapeutic doses, did not have symptom-level ratings available and could not be included. Severity was assessed for side effects related to sleep, somatic anxiety, gastrointestinal function, and sexual dysfunction. Analysis of covariance was used to assess the relation between these side effects and ratings of relevant HDRS-17-derived outcome parameters. Side effects related to sleep, somatic anxiety and sexual dysfunction significantly and exclusively associated with higher scores on HDRS-17 items measuring the corresponding domains. Side effects related to gastrointestinal function associated with higher HDRS-17 item scores on all assessed domains. Treatment outcome was significantly related to side effect severity when assessed using HDRS-17-sum (beta 0.32 (0.074), p < 0.001), but not when the HDRS-6-sum-score (beta 0.035 (0.043), p = 0.415) or the depressed mood item (beta 0.007 (0.012), p = .527) were used as effect parameters. That some HDRS-17 items co-vary with common antidepressant side effects suggests some of these adverse events are counted twice, potentially leading to an underestimation of antidepressant efficacy.

psychiatry
Informant Effect on Placebo Response in Mental Disorders—Reply

Tom Bschor,Christopher Baethge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2868

2024-11-07

JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract:In Reply We appreciate the feedback and additions to our systematic review. As correctly described by Furukawa and Cuijpers, we used pre-post effect sizes to quantify the placebo response. Because symptom improvement in placebo groups should be quantified independently of the effects in active study arms, pre-post changes are the appropriate measure and are in line with previous comparative analyses of placebo responses, as seen in the studies by Khan et al and Sugarman et al. In our opinion, response, or remission, rates are unsuitable for comparison across different diagnoses because different response definitions are used for different disorders. The ratio of means, also mentioned, is suitable for comparing intervention groups with control groups, which is not applicable to our research question.

psychiatry
The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: an umbrella review and meta‐analytic evaluation of recent meta‐analyses

Falk Leichsenring,Christiane Steinert,Sven Rabung,John P.A. Ioannidis,Falk Leichsenring,Christiane Steinert,Sven Rabung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20941

2022-01-11

World Psychiatry

Abstract:Mental disorders represent a worldwide public health concern. Psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies are recommended as first line treatments. However, evidence has emerged that their efficacy may be overestimated, due to a variety of shortcomings in clinical trials (e.g., publication bias, weak control conditions such as waiting list). We performed an umbrella review of recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for the main mental disorders in adults. We selected meta-analyses that formally assessed risk of bias or quality of studies, excluded weak comparators, and used effect sizes for target symptoms as primary outcome. We searched PubMed and PsycINFO and individual records of the Cochrane Library for meta-analyses published between January 2014 and March 2021 comparing psychotherapies or pharmacotherapies with placebo or treatment-as-usual (TAU), or psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies head-to-head, or the combination of psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy to either monotherapy. One hundred and two meta-analyses, encompassing 3,782 RCTs and 650,514 patients, were included, covering depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance use disorders, insomnia, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and bipolar disorder. Across disorders and treatments, the majority of effect sizes for target symptoms were small. A random effect meta-analytic evaluation of the effect sizes reported by the largest meta-analyses per disorder yielded a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.26-0.42) for psychotherapies and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.32-0.41) for pharmacotherapies compared with placebo or TAU. The SMD for head-to-head comparisons of psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies was 0.11 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.26). The SMD for the combined treatment compared with either monotherapy was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.44). Risk of bias was often high. After more than half a century of research, thousands of RCTs and millions of invested funds, the effect sizes of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders are limited, suggesting a ceiling effect for treatment research as presently conducted. A paradigm shift in research seems to be required to achieve further progress.

psychiatry
Artificial intelligence approach for the analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials in major depressive disorders accounting for individual propensity to respond to placebo

Roberto Gomeni,Françoise Bressolle-Gomeni,Maurizio Fava

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02443-0

2023-04-29

Abstract:Treatment effect in clinical trials for major depressive disorders (RCT) can be viewed as the resultant of treatment specific and non-specific effects. Baseline individual propensity to respond non-specifically to any treatment or intervention can be considered as a major non-specific confounding effect. The greater is the baseline propensity, the lower will be the chance to detect any treatment-specific effect. The statistical methodologies currently applied for analyzing RCTs doesn't account for potential unbalance in the allocation of subjects to treatment arms due to heterogenous distributions of propensity. Hence, the groups to be compared may be imbalanced, and thus incomparable. Propensity weighting methodology was used to reduce baseline imbalances between arms. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, three arms, parallel group, 8-week, fixed-dose study to evaluate efficacy of paroxetine CR 12.5 and 25 mg/day is presented as a cases study. An artificial intelligence model was developed to predict placebo response at week 8 in subjects assigned to placebo arm using changes from screening to baseline of individual Hamilton Depression Rating Scale items. This model was used to predict the probability to respond to placebo in each subject. The inverse of the probability was used as weight in the mixed-effects model applied to assess treatment effect. The analysis with and without propensity weight indicated that the weighted analysis provided an estimate of treatment effect and effect-size about twice larger than the non-weighted analysis. Propensity weighting provides an unbiased strategy to account for heterogeneous and uncontrolled placebo effect making patients' data comparable across treatment arms.
Reply to: Toward Enhanced Methodological Rigor: Addressing Limitations in the Comparative Analysis of Probiotics and Antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder Management

Shilin Zhao,Jun Tao,Suisha Liang,Hein M Tun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae139

2024-10-15

Nutrition Reviews

Abstract:Dear Editor, In our recent study, 1 we pooled data from 42 double-blind, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and acceptability of probiotics and antidepressants in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. Given the absence of head-to-head RCTs and considering the potential ethical issues, we undertook a network meta-analysis to evaluate the noninferiority of the 2 interventions by indirect comparisons. In response, de Souza Junior et al 2 pointed out several potential limitations in our methodology. We appreciate their insightful comments on clinical applications of our findings. Homogeneity within a meta-analysis is crucial for drawing reliable conclusions, particularly concerning the homogeneity of patient characteristics (eg, types of depression, severity of MDD, diagnostic criteria, demographics), interventions (eg, types of antidepressants, dosage, concurrent medication use), outcomes (assessment tools), and study design (eg, randomization, concealment, blindness, sample size). However, the heterogenicity is inevitable because clinical and methodological diversity always occur in a meta-analysis. 3 Accordingly, we conducted a series of subgroup analyses, meta-regressions, and sensitivity analyses to identify and address sources of heterogenicity.

nutrition & dietetics
Symptom-level effects of SSRIs in depression studies in a large-scale study programme: efficacy, effects of baseline severity, impact on suicidality, and more

J. Näslund

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.41

2024-01-25

European Psychiatry

Abstract:Conclusions about the efficacy of antidepressants, such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), in clinical trials have generally been based on analyses of total sum scores on psychometric rating scales, mainly the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). However, this rating scale has several drawbacks, such as multidimensionality and a tendency of several items to pick up side-effects. Therefore, analyses that only rely on global drug treatment effects on the HDRS and similar scales risk misrepresenting important properties of any drugs investigated. This presentation concerns the findings of a research project investigating item-level effects of SSRIs in treating depression in a material encompassing 8262 patients having participated in pre- and post-marketing industry-sponsored studies concering paroxetine, sertraline or citalopram. This has been a fruitful endeavour, having resulted in numerous research papers. Though our main focus at the outset was to investigate if a comparatively low efficacy of SSRIs in clinical trials was an artefact related to the use of HDRS sum scores as the main outcome (which was indeed the case), we have also used this material to investigate a number of other important questions relating to the influence of SSRIs on the various symptoms experienced by patients with depression. Major findings discussed in the presentation include: i) confirmation of early (but not widely known) reports that SSRIs significantly reduce core depression symptoms already after a week of treatment ii) strong evidence for SSRIs being equally effective in treating core depressive symptoms in mild as well as severe depression, earlier reported differences apparently being explained by differences in terms of effects (and prevalence) of non-core symptoms iii) SSRIs do not seem to exacerbate suicidality as measured by the relevant item of the HDRS scale - indeed, both average scores as well as likelihood of worsening are significantly reduced already at week 1. The implications of these, and other, findings are discussed in relation to both the role of SSRIs in the clinic as well as pre-clinical research into e.g. the mode of action of these drugs. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

psychiatry
The Impact of Baseline Anxiety on Drug Placebo Separation and Drug/Placebo Response in an Acute Schizophrenia Clinical Trial—A Post-hoc Analysis

Alan Kott,Stephen Brannan,Xingmei Wang,David Daniel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgad003

2023-01-01

Schizophrenia Bulletin Open

Abstract:Abstract Objectives We sought to evaluate the impact of baseline anxiety levels on drug placebo separation and drug and placebo response in acutely psychotic schizophrenic subjects. Methods In this post-hoc analysis, modified intent-to-treat Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale data were obtained from a phase 2, multi-center, 5 week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of KarXT in hospitalized adults with DSM-5 schizophrenia experiencing an acute exacerbation or relapse of symptoms. We investigated the impact of anxiety on drug placebo separation and drug and placebo response in 2 ways. In the first set of analyses, we dichotomized the data based on the absence or presence of anxiety symptoms. In the second set of analyses, we categorized subjects by levels of anxiety. All analyses were conducted using generalized linear models with normal distribution and identity link function. Results On average, subjects entering the trial were suffering from a moderate level of anxiety. Subjects with no baseline anxiety had a significant increase in placebo response, a decrease in drug response and did not separate drugs from placebo. With increasing levels of baseline anxiety, a larger drug placebo difference was observed. Discussion Our analyses identified that absence of anxiety at baseline was associated with a loss of signal at end of treatment between drug and placebo driven by a differential effect on placebo and treatment response. The effect observed was not related to the overall baseline symptom severity and was not mediated by improvement in anxiety itself. Interpretation of the results is caveated by the retrospective nature of the analyses.
The association between study design and antidepressant effects in psychedelic-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis

Jia-Ru Li,Kuo-Tung Chiang,Yu-Chen Kao,Chia-Ling Yu,Fu-Chi Yang,Chih-Sung Liang,Tien-Wei Hsu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.10.016

IF: 6.533

2024-10-14

Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract:Different study designs of psychedelic trials may impact the blinding and expectance, leading to biased treatment effects. This study aimed to examine the association between antidepressant efficacy and study designs in psychedelic trials. Six databases were systematically searched. Eligible trials were required to investigate the efficacy of psychedelics (psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA], and ayahuasca) in adult patients with depressive symptoms. We only considered oral psychedelic-assisted therapy without concomitant use of antidepressants. The primary outcome was the change in depressive symptoms. There were five study designs of psychedelic trials, including non-active-drug-as-placebo, active-drug-as-placebo, waitlist-as-control, fixed-order, and pre-post designs. In non-active-drug -as-placebo design, psilocybin (k = 4, Hedges' g [g] = 0.87, 95 % confidence intervals[CIs] = 0.58 to 1.16) and MDMA (k = 2, g = 0.65, 95%CIs = 0.26 to 1.05) were associated with large and medium effect sizes, respectively. In active-drug-as-placebo design, both psilocybin (k = 2, g = 0.71, 95%CIs = −0.01 to 1.43) and MDMA (k = 3, g = 0.53, 95%CIs = −0.23 to 1.28) were not statistically significant. In pre-post single-arm (k = 3, g = 2.51, 95%CIs = 1.00 to 4.02) and waitlist-as-control (k = 1, g = 2.88, 95%CIs = 1.75 to 4.00) designs, psilocybin showed a large effect size of antidepressant effect. Ayahuasca also showed a large effect size in both pre-post (k = 2, g = 1.88, 95%CIs = 1.18 to 2.57) and non-active-drug-as-placebo (k = 1, g = 1.60, 95%CIs = 0.84 to 2.36) designs. LSD was associated with a significant antidepressant effect only in non-active-drug-as-placebo design (k = 1, g = 1.49, 95%CIs = 0.80 to 2.17) but not in active-drug-as-placebo design (k = 1, g = 0.44, 95%CIs = −0.90 to 1.78). The antidepressant effects of psychedelics may be overestimated in studies with pre-post single-arm, non-active-drugs-as placebo, and waitlist-control designs. Restricted sample size, difficulty with establishing blinding for participants, and over expectancy limit the estimation of the antidepressant effect of psychedelic-assisted therapy.

psychiatry,clinical neurology
Differential power of placebo across major psychiatric disorders: a preliminary meta-analysis and machine learning study

Bo Cao,Yang S. Liu,Alessandro Selvitella,Diego Librenza-Garcia,Ives Cavalcante Passos,Jeffrey Sawalha,Pedro Ballester,Jianshan Chen,Shimiao Dong,Fei Wang,Flavio Kapczinski,Serdar M. Dursun,Xin-Min Li,Russell Greiner,Andrew Greenshaw

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99534-z

IF: 4.6

2021-10-29

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Abstract The placebo effect across psychiatric disorders is still not well understood. In the present study, we conducted meta-analyses including meta-regression, and machine learning analyses to investigate whether the power of placebo effect depends on the types of psychiatric disorders. We included 108 clinical trials (32,035 participants) investigating pharmacological intervention effects on major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SCZ). We developed measures based on clinical rating scales and Clinical Global Impression scores to compare placebo effects across these disorders. We performed meta-analysis including meta-regression using sample-size weighted bootstrapping techniques, and machine learning analysis to identify the disorder type included in a trial based on the placebo response. Consistently through multiple measures and analyses, we found differential placebo effects across the three disorders, and found lower placebo effect in SCZ compared to mood disorders. The differential placebo effects could also distinguish the condition involved in each trial between SCZ and mood disorders with machine learning. Our study indicates differential placebo effect across MDD, BD, and SCZ, which is important for future neurobiological studies of placebo effects across psychiatric disorders and may lead to potential therapeutic applications of placebo on disorders more responsive to placebo compared to other conditions.

multidisciplinary sciences

Statistically Significant Antidepressant-Placebo Differences on Subjective Symptom-Rating Scales Do Not Prove That the Drugs Work: Effect Size and Method Bias Matter!

Do Antidepressants Work? Statistical Significance Versus Clinical Benefits

Kirsch Et Al.'s (2008) Calculations Are Correct: Reconsidering Fountoulakis &amp; Möller's Re-Analysis of the Kirsch Data

Informant Effect on Placebo Response in Mental Disorders

Meta-Analysis of Placebo Response in Adult Antidepressant Trials

The overestimation of the effect sizes of psychotherapies for depression in waitlist controlled trials: a meta-analytic comparison with usual care controlled trials

Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration

Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review

Combining endpoint and change data did not affect the summary standardised mean difference in pairwise and network meta-analyses: An empirical study in depression

Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of antidepressants: a cross-sectional survey

Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis

EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: Efficacy of psilocybin for treating symptoms of depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

Do side effects of antidepressants impact efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale? A pooled patient-level analysis

Informant Effect on Placebo Response in Mental Disorders—Reply

The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: an umbrella review and meta‐analytic evaluation of recent meta‐analyses

Artificial intelligence approach for the analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials in major depressive disorders accounting for individual propensity to respond to placebo

Reply to: Toward Enhanced Methodological Rigor: Addressing Limitations in the Comparative Analysis of Probiotics and Antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder Management

Symptom-level effects of SSRIs in depression studies in a large-scale study programme: efficacy, effects of baseline severity, impact on suicidality, and more

The Impact of Baseline Anxiety on Drug Placebo Separation and Drug/Placebo Response in an Acute Schizophrenia Clinical Trial—A Post-hoc Analysis

The association between study design and antidepressant effects in psychedelic-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis

Differential power of placebo across major psychiatric disorders: a preliminary meta-analysis and machine learning study

Kirsch Et Al.'s (2008) Calculations Are Correct: Reconsidering Fountoulakis & Möller's Re-Analysis of the Kirsch Data