come rest a while I…

Posted on Tuesday 6 March 2012

When people move up to these mountains, a regular house warming gift is a sign for the porch that says, "come rest a while" or "come sit a while" to put above the rocking chairs. Well, I want to hang one here to mark this second Gibbons article that was posted today. It’s going to be with me for a while, or me with it. The first one [Suicidal Thoughts and Behavior With Antidepressant Treatment] used a retrospective analysis to conclude that the "black box" warning of suicidality with SSRIs was a fallacy, no matter what the age of the patient [red alert…]. Today’s article is also a retrospective analysis and says that the concerns about the efficacy of the SSRIs, particularly in mild depression, are also fallacious [no matter what the age of the patient]. That’s quite a mouthful, and deserves that we "come rest a while" with this article and see how he got there, particularly by analyzing data that has been sitting around for a while itself. I’m going to confine myself to the Child and Adolescent piece [at least at first]:
Benefits From Antidepressants:
Synthesis of 6-Week Patient-Level Outcomes From Double-blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials of Fluoxetine and Venlafaxine
by Robert D. Gibbons, PhD; Kwan Hur, PhD; C. Hendricks Brown, PhD; John M. Davis, MD; and J. John Mann, MD
Archives of General Psychiatry. Published online March 5, 2012.

Context: Some meta-analyses suggest that efficacy of antidepressants for major depression is overstated and limited to severe depression.
Objective: To determine the short-term efficacy of antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder in youth, adult, and geriatric populations.
Data Sources: Reanalysis of all intent-to-treat person-level longitudinal data during the first 6 weeks of treatment of major depressive disorder from 12 adult, 4 geriatric, and 4 youth randomized controlled trials of fluoxetine hydrochloride and 21 adult trials of venlafaxine hydrochloride.
Study Selection: All sponsor-conducted randomized controlled trials of fluoxetine and venlafaxine.
Data Extraction: Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised scores (youth population), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (adult and geriatric populations), and estimated response and remission rates at 6 weeks were analyzed for 2635 adults, 960 geriatric patients, and 708 youths receiving fluoxetine and for 2421 adults receiving immediate-release venlafaxine and 2461 adults receiving extended-release venlafaxine.
Data Synthesis: Patients in all age and drug groups had significantly greater improvement relative to control patients receiving placebo. The differential rate of improvement was largest for adults receiving fluoxetine (34.6% greater than those receiving placebo). Youths had the largest treated vs control difference in response rates (24.1%) and remission rates (30.1%), with adult differences generally in the 15.6% (remission) to 21.4% (response) range. Geriatric patients had the smallest drug-placebo differences, an 18.5% greater rate of improvement, 9.9% for response and 6.5% for remission. Immediate-release venlafaxine produced larger effects than extended-release venlafaxine. Baseline severity could not be shown to affect symptom reduction.
Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first research synthesis in this area to use complete longitudinal person-level data from a large set of published and unpublished studies. The results do not support previous findings that antidepressants show little benefit except for severe depression. The antidepressants fluoxetine and venlafaxine are efficacious for major depressive disorder in all age groups, although more so in youths and adults compared with geriatric patients. Baseline severity was not significantly related to degree of treatment advantage over placebo.
In the first paper, the data sources were vague. I had spent some time trying to intuit their sources [coming soon?…] but couldn’t nail it down. They said in that article:
    A detailed description of the study data is available on request from the authors and will be available in a related publication.
… referring to this paper. Well I’m not sure that I’d call what it contained a "detailed description," but at least they named the Lilly studies they were using, along with the Treatment of Adolescents with Depression Study [TADS]:


[only Child and Adolescent data shown]

Let’s linger here for a moment [don’t worry – it’s the only table in the paper]. Here’s what I had guessed before based on FDA approval documents and the publications from the TADS Study [see coming soon?…]:

STUDY DX SPONSOR YEAR N PBO FLX DURATION

HCCJ MDD Lilly 1984 40   19   21   6 weeks  
X065 MDD NIMH? 1991 96   48   48   8 weeks  
HCJE MDD Lilly 1998 219   110   109   13 weeks  
HCJW OCD Lilly 1999 103   71   32   9 weeks  
subtotal   458   248   210     
 
TADS MDD NIMH 2000 433   206   227   36 weeks  
total   891   454   437     

And here’s what Gibbons used in his analysis:

STUDY DX SPONSOR YEAR N PBO FLX DURATION

X065 MDD NIMH? 1991 96   48   48   6 weeks  
HCJE MDD Lilly 1998 219   110   109   6 weeks  
LYAQ MDD Lilly? ? 172   45   127   6 weeks  
TADS MDD NIMH 2000 221   112   109   6 weeks  
total   708   315   393     

Some of the differences are clear. His group only analyzed the first six weeks because that was the shortest study [including adult studies]. They wanted complete data for all studies in their analysis [?]. Studies X065 and HCJE were part of the  FDA Medical Review. They were both published by Dr. Emslie et al [A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine in children and adolescents with depression, Fluoxetine for acute treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, reviewed on this blog in tuning the quartet…]. I don’t have a clue where Study LYAQ came from. It’s not listed on Lilly’s Clinical Trial site. If you figure it out, let me know [from the text of the article, I think it was an in-patient study]. The TADS trial [Fluoxetine, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, and Their Combination for Adolescents With Depression] had four groups – Placebo, Prozac, Cognitive Behavior Therapy [CBT], and Prozac+CBT. In this analysis, they only used the Placebo and the Prozac groups, explaining the different numbers in the two tables, again truncating the trial to the first six weeks [the first part of TADS lasted 12 weeks]. Note that Dr. Emslie was a member of the TADS group as well.

My apologies for being so tedious, but it took me an evening to figure this much out about his data sample. It’s the first six weeks of longer trials considering only the Placebo and Prozac groups from the studies. I’m going to call getting this far enough for one night, and go rest a while…
  1.  
    Talbot
    March 6, 2012 | 9:13 AM
     

    Based on a search of Lilly LYAQ, it looks like it is B4Z-MC-LYAQ. A search for that did not yield much, but here is the title and dates from the PI’s CV:

    B4Z-MC-LYAQ — J.V. Aranda (PI) 1/11/01-1/31/03
    Lilly Research Laboratories Safety and Efficacy of Tomoxetine or Tomoxetine Plus Fluosetine in the Treatment of Mixed Attentional and Affective Disorders.

    Here’s the link:
    http://www.downstate.edu/peds/faculty-research/aranda.html

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.