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

Journal of Psychiatric Research

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 88-92

  Khan, Arif ^a,b   Faucett, James ^a   Brown, Walter A ^c,d  

^a Northwest Clinical Research Center   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Antidepressants; Clinical trials; Depression interview; Placebo; Psychiatric interview; Research design

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIOTAPING; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DEPRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONTGOMERY ASBERG DEPRESSION RATING SCALE; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CODING; PLACEBO EFFECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RATER APPLIED PERFORMANCE SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; VARIANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ANTIDEPRESSANTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; DEPRESSION INTERVIEW; PLACEBO; PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW; RESEARCH DESIGN;

ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS; AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, MAJOR; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PLACEBO EFFECT; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84893905771     PISSN: 00223956     EISSN: 18791379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 2000, text revision, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. 4th ed.
2. Cogger K.O. Rating rater improvement: a method for estimating increased effect size and reduction of clinical trial costs. JClin Psychopharmacol 2007, 27:418-419.
3. Engelhardt N., Feiger A.D., Cogger K.O., Sikich D., DeBrotta D.J., Lipsitz J.D., et al. Rating the raters: assessing the quality of Hamilton depression rating scale for depression clinical interviews in two industry-sponsored clinical drug trials. JClin Psychopharmacol 2006, 26:71-74.
4. Khan A., Khan S., Brown W.A. Are placebo controls necessary to test new antidepressants and anxiolytics?. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2002, 5:193-197.
5. Khan A., Khan S.R., Shankles E.B., Polissar N.L. Relative sensitivity of the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale, the Hamilton depression rating scale and the clinical global impressions rating scale in antidepressant clinical trials. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2002, 17(6):281-285.
6. Khan A., Detke M., Khan S.R.F., Mallinckrodt C. Placebo response and antidepressant clinical trial outcome. JNerv Ment Dis 2003, 191:211-218.
7. Kobak K.A., Feiger A.D., Lipsitz J.D. Interview quality and signal detection in clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry 2005, 162:628.
8. Kobak K.A., Kane J.M., Thase M.E., Nierenberg A.A. Why do clinical trials fail? The problem of measurement error in clinical trials: time to test new paradigms?. JClin Psychopharmacol 2007, 27:1-5.
9. Kobak K.A., Leuchter A., DeBrota D., Engelhardt N., Williams J.B., Cook I.A., et al. Site versus centralized raters in a clinical depression trial: impact on patient selection and placebo response. JClin Psychopharmacol 2010, 30:193-197.
10. Leon A.C., Marzuk P.M., Portera L. More reliable outcome measures can reduce sample size requirements. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995, 52:867-871.
11. Lipsitz J., Kobak K., Feiger A., Sikich D., Moroz G., Engelhardt N. The rater applied performance scale: development and reliability. Psychiatry Res 2004, 127:147-155.
12. Montgomery S.A., Asberg M. Anew depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979, 134:382-389.
13. 1) for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Poster presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American college of neuropsychopharmacology, 7-11 December; Scottsdale, AZ 2008.
14. Perkins D.O., Wyatt R.J., Bartko J.J. Penny-wise and pound-foolish: the impact of measurement error on sample size requirements in clinical trials. Biol Psychiatry 2000, 47:762-766.
15. Rush A.J. The inventory of depressive symptomatology (IDS): clinician (IDS-C) and self-report (IDS-SR). Int J Method Psychiatric Res 2000, 9(2):45-59.
16. Rush A.J., Trivedi M.H., Ibrahim H.M., Carmody T.J., Arnow B., Klein D.N., et al. The 16-item quick inventory of depressive symptomatology (QIDS), clinician rating (QIDS-C) and self-report (QIDS-SR): a psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major depression. Biol Psychiatry 2003, 54:573-583.
17. Targum S.D., Wedel P.C., Robinson J., Daniel D.G., Busner J., Bleicher L.S., et al. Acomparative analysis between site-based and centralized ratings and patient self-ratings in a clinical trial of major depressive disorder. JPsychiatric Res 2013, 47:944-954.
18. Walsh B.T., Seidman S., Sysko R., Gould M. Placebo response in studies of major depression: variable, substantial, and growing. JAMA 2002, 287:1840-1847.
19. Williams J.W., Kobak K. Development and reliability of a structured interview guide for the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA). Br J Psychiatry 2008, 192:52-58.