Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:00:49.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Severity at baseline and onset of improvement in depression. Meta-analysis of imipramine and moclobemide versus placebo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

HH Stassen ,
J Angst  and
A Delini-Stula
HH Stassen
Affiliation:
Psychiatric University Hospital Zurich, Research Department, PO Box 68, CH-8029Zurich, Switzerland
J Angst
Affiliation:
Psychiatric University Hospital Zurich, Research Department, PO Box 68, CH-8029Zurich, Switzerland
A Delini-Stula
Affiliation:
Psychiatric University Hospital Zurich, Research Department, PO Box 68, CH-8029Zurich, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

Meta-analysis of several double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, including 1277 patients, has been performed in order to compare the efficacy of moclobemide, a new reversible and selective MAO-A inhibitor (RIMA) and imipramine. The main interest of the analysis was to test the time course of improvement and the impact of the pre-defined outcome criteria (50% reduction of total HAMD score) on the response to treatment, if initial severity of depression and drop-outs due to inefficacy are taken into consideration. In order to analyze the interdependence of the severity of the disease and outcome, patient sample was subdivided into three HAMD (17 items) baseline score groups: low- (score ≤ 21), medium- (22-27) and high (≥ 28) scorers. We found that reliable assessment of the point in time at which a drug begins to show therapeutic effect in each individual is a critical factor in the determination of the time course of improvement. We defined therefore the onset of improvement as the time point of a significant decrease (20%) of HAMD baseline score without subsequent deterioration. The threshold for the distinction between a significant change and spontaneous fluctuations, or error variations due to instrument or observer, was the natural variability of the HAMD score during the first two observation days. The results of the analysis replicated our earlier findings and confirmed that in treatment responders the time course of improvement is identical under placebo and antidepressants. Neither the time-points of the onset of effect, nor the time-points at which a 50% decrease of HAMD was reached, differed between the groups. In particular, no treatment- Specific time lag showed up in the onset of action. The difference in efficacy between antidepressants and placebo was evident only in the total number of responders and non-responders. Moreover, onset of improvement within the first 10 days of treatment, which was observed in 40-50% of patients, was highly predictive of the final response to treatment. The rate of correctly predicted responders in our sample was 70% for all three treatment modalities. With respect to the severity of the disease, a slight shift towards earlier onset of improvement was found for more severe cases. This finding was true for placebo and drug responders hut there was no clear-cut other interdependence with the treatment outcome. Drop-out rales due to inefficacy were in this study similar under all treatments (20-24%) anil occurred mostly during the first two weeks of the trial (64-71%.).

Keywords

antidepressantsplacebomoclobemidetreatment outcomemethodology of clinical trial
Type
Research Article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 9 , Issue 3: European Committee for Standardisation of Clinical Trials with Psychotropics, ECST Strasbourg Forum III. 10-11 June 1993, Strasbourg, France , 1994 , pp. 129 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Present address: Roche International Clinical Research Center, F-673K0 Lingolsheim, France.

References

Angst, JScheidegger, PStabl, MEfficacy of moclobemide in different patient groups: results of new subscales of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Clin Neuropharmacol 1993;16:Suppl 2:55–62Google ScholarPubMed
Angst, JDelini-Stula, AStassen, HHIs a cut-off score a suitable measure for treament outcome? A methodological meta-analysis. Human Psychopharmacology, 1993;8:311–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balon, RMonoamine specificity of antidepressants and prediction of therapeutic response. L'Encéphale 1993; 17:121–2Google Scholar
DaPrada, MKettler, RKeller, HHHaefely, WENeurochemical effects in vitro and in vivo of the antidepressant Ro 11-1163, a specific and short-acting MAO-A inhibitor. Mod Prob Pharmacopsychiatry 1983; 19:231–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delini-Stula, AHauser, KBaumann, ΡOlpe, HRWaldmeier, ΡStorni, AStereospecificity of behavior and biochemical responses to oxaprotiline – a new antidepressant. Adv Biochem Psychopharmacol 1982:31:265–75Google ScholarPubMed
Delini-Stula, AFrom animal experiments to clinical dosing: some aspects of preclinical development of antidepressants. In: Dahl, SGGram, LF eds. Clinical Pharmacology in Psychiatry. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 1989:287–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, ALA new approach to the analysis of clinical drug trials with withdrawals. Biometrics 1980:36:721–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenhouse, JBStangl, DBromberg, JAn introduction to survival analysis: statistical methods for analysis of clinical trial data. J Cono Clin Psychology 1989:57 (4):536–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyting, AEssers, JGTolboom, JTA practical application of the Patel-Kenward analysis of covariance to data from an anti-depressant trial with drop-outs. Stat App 1990:2:259–307Google Scholar
Heyling, ATolboom, JTEsser, JGStatistical handling of drop-outs in longitudinal clinical trials. Stat Med 1992;11(16):2043–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, ACohen, SDager, SAvery, DHDunner, DLOnset of response in relation to outcome in depressed outpatients with placebo and imipramine. J Affective Disord 1989:17:33–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, JARubin, DBStatistical Analysis with Missing Data, New York: John Wiley, 1987Google Scholar
Patel, HIAnalysis of covariance of incomplete data from a clinical trial with repeated measurementsIn: Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section Session at the American Statistical Association Meeting. Alexandria: American Statistical Association, 1988:79–85Google Scholar
Pledger, GHall, DWithdrawals from drug trials. Biometrics 1982:38:276–8Google ScholarPubMed
Prien, RFCarpenter, LLKupfer, DJThe definition and operational criteria for treatment outcome of major depressive disorder. A review of the current research literature. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991:48:796–80010.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810330020003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roffmann, MGould, EFBrewer, SJLau, HSachais, BDixon, RBKaczmarek, LLesher, AA double-blind comparative study of oxaprotiline with amitriptyline and placebo in moderate depression. Curr Ther Res 1982:32 (2):247–56Google Scholar
Stassen, HHDelini-Stula, AAngst, JTime course of improvement under antidepressant treatment: a survival-analytical approach. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1993:3:127–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldmeier, PCBaumann, PAHauser, KMaître, LStorni, AOxaprotiline, a nonadrenaline uptake inhibitor with an active and inactive enantiomer. Biochem Pharmacol 1982:31:2169–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.