Search

BackgroundOne aim of personalized medicine is to determine which treatment is to be preferred for an individual patient, given all patient information available. Particularly in mental health, however, there is a lack of a single objective, reliable measure of outcome that is sensitive to crucial individual differences among patients.MethodWe examined the feasibility of quantifying the total clinical value provided by a treatment (measured by both harms and benefits) in a single metric. An expert panel was asked to compare 100 pairs of patients, one from each treatment group, who had participated in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) involving interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) and escitalopram, selecting the patient with the preferred outcome considering both benefits and harms.ResultsFrom these results, an integrated preference score (IPS) was derived, such that the differences between any two patients' IPSs would predict the clinicians' preferences. This IPS was then computed for all patients in the RCT. A second set of 100 pairs was rated by the panel. Their preferences were highly correlated with the IPS differences (r=0.84). Finally, the IPS was used as the outcome measure comparing IPT and escitalopram. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the effect size comparing treatments indicated clinical equivalence of the treatments.ConclusionsA metric that combines benefits and harms of treatments could increase the value of RCTs by making clearer which treatments are preferable and, ultimately, for whom. Such methods result in more precise estimation of effect sizes, without increasing the required sample size.

BackgroundAlthough many studies suggest that, on average, depression-specific psychotherapy and antidepressant pharmacotherapy are efficacious, we know relatively little about which patients are more likely to respond to one versus the other. We sought to determine whether measures of spectrum psychopathology are useful in deciding which patients with unipolar depression should receive pharmacotherapy versus depression-specific psychotherapy.MethodA total of 318 adult out-patients with major depression were randomly assigned to escitalopram pharmacotherapy or interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) at academic medical centers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Pisa, Italy. Our main focus was on predictors and moderators of time to remission on monotherapy at 12 weeks.ResultsParticipants with higher scores on the need for medical reassurance factor of the Panic–Agoraphobic Spectrum Self-Report (PAS-SR) had more rapid remission with IPT and those with lower scores on the psychomotor activation factor of the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) experienced more rapid remission with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) pharmacotherapy. Non-specific predictors of longer time to remission with monotherapy included several panic spectrum and mood spectrum factors and the Social Phobia Spectrum (SHY) total score. Higher baseline scores on the 17- and 25-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scales (HAMD-17 and HAMD-25) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) also predicted a longer time to remission, whereas being married predicted a shorter time to remission.ConclusionsThis exploratory study identified several non-specific predictors but few moderators of psychotherapy versus pharmacotherapy outcome. It offers useful indicators of the characteristics of patients that are generally difficult to treat, but only limited guidance as to who benefits from IPT versus SSRI pharmacotherapy.

Background: To date, no cross-national RCT has addressed the mechanisms underlying the relative success of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions for depression. A multi-site clinical trial that includes psychotherapy as one of the treatments presents numerous challenges related to cross-site consistency and communication. Purpose: This report describes how those challenges were met in the study ``Depression: The Search for Treatment Relevant Phenotypes'', being carried out at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pisa, Italy. Methods: Implementing the study required the investigators to address methodological and practical challenges related to the different requirements of the two Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), psychotherapy training, independent evaluator training, patient recruitment, development of common tools for data entry, quality control and generation of weekly reports of patient progress as well as establishing a similar clinical and research framework in two countries with substantially different health care systems. Results: By having bilingual investigators and staff members who spent time at one another's sites, making use of frequent conference-call staff meetings and being flexible within the bounds of the sometimes contradictory requirements of the IRBs, the investigators were able to meet the human subjects protection requirements of both institutions, surmount language barriers to consistent therapist and evaluator training and develop common tools for study management. As a result, recruitment goals were met at both sites and retention rates were high. One instance of inconsistent implementation of the protocol was corrected within the first year. Limitations: This study was conducted in two Western cultures by researchers with long-standing collaboration. Our findings may not be generalizable to other countries or research settings. Conclusions: The implementation of a cross-national protocol and the adoption and maintenance of common procedures is possible when investigators are aware of the challenges this may present and are proactive in trying to address them. Clinical Trials 2008; 5: 253—261. http://ctj.sagepub.com