{"id":62387,"date":"2015-12-19T07:35:48","date_gmt":"2015-12-19T12:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=62387"},"modified":"2015-12-19T11:01:40","modified_gmt":"2015-12-19T16:01:40","slug":"the-extra-mile","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/12\/19\/the-extra-mile\/","title":{"rendered":"the extra mile&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">The topic here is <em><font color=\"#200020\">augmentation with Atypical Antipsychotics in treatment resistant depression<\/font><\/em> [once again], but it&#8217;s also about meta-analyses in general. In my recent <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/12\/14\/in-the-land-of-sometimes3\/\">in the land of sometimes<sup>[3]<\/sup>&hellip;<\/a>, I was looking at the techniques used in making the <em><font color=\"#200020\">forest plots<\/font><\/em> now widely used in meta-analyses. It came to mind as I was comparing these two examples [essentially covering the same ground]: <\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/19687129\">Atypical Antipsychotic Augmentation in Major Depressive  Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled  Randomized Trials<\/a><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\">by J. Craig Nelson, M.D. and George I. Papakostas, M.D.<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\"><strong><font color=\"#004400\">American Journal of Psychiatry<\/font><\/strong>. 2009 166:980-991.<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\">[<a href=\"https:\/\/www.mainemed.com\/sites\/default\/files\/content\/Metanal%20Antipsy%20Depr_2009.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">full text on-line<\/a>]<\/div>\n<p>  <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Objective<\/font><\/strong><strong><font color=\"#200020\">:<\/font><\/strong>   The authors sought to determine by meta-analysis the efficacy and  tolerability of adjunctive atypical antipsychotic agents in major  depressive disorder.<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"66\" height=\"18\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/snip.gif\" \/><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Conclusions<\/font><\/strong><strong><font color=\"#200020\">:<\/font><\/strong>   Atypical antipsychotics are effective augmentation agents in major  depressive disorder but are associated with an increased risk of  discontinuation due to adverse events.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">In <a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/12\/09\/62027\/\" target=\"_blank\">creative funding III &amp; some other things&hellip;<\/a> where I reviewed part of it. I said, &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">It&rsquo;s a decent article, well researched with lots of useful information<\/font><\/em>&quot; but I could&#8217;ve added, &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">but there&#8217;s a much more comprehensive one coming.<\/font><\/em>&quot; Alto mentioned this next one in the comments, and it answered some questions I hadn&#8217;t gotten around to asking:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/journals.plos.org\/plosmedicine\/article?id=10.1371\/journal.pmed.1001403\"> Adjunctive Atypical Antipsychotic Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Depression, Quality of Life, and Safety Outcomes<\/a><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\">by Glen I. Spielmans, Margit I. Berman, Eftihia Linardatos, Nicholas Z. Rosenlicht, Angela Perry, and Alexander C. Tsai<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\"><strong><font color=\"#3300cc\">PLoS Medicine<\/font><\/strong>. 2013 10[3]:e1001403.<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\">[<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/journals.plos.org\/plosmedicine\/article?id=10.1371\/journal.pmed.1001403\">full text on-line<\/a>]<\/div>\n<p>  <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Background:<\/font><\/strong> Atypical antipsychotic medications are widely prescribed for the adjunctive treatment of depression, yet their total risk&ndash;benefit profile is not well understood. We thus conducted a systematic review of the efficacy and safety profiles of atypical antipsychotic medications used for the adjunctive treatment of depression.<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"66\" height=\"18\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/snip.gif\" \/><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Conclusions:<\/font><\/strong> Atypical antipsychotic medications for the adjunctive treatment of depression are efficacious in reducing observer-rated depressive symptoms, but clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously in light of [1] the small-to-moderate-sized benefits, [2] the lack of benefit with regards to quality of life or functional impairment, and [3] the abundant evidence of potential treatment-related harm.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">The 2009 paper was essentially a collection of <em><font color=\"#200020\">forest plots<\/font><\/em>: Response Rate, Remission Rate, All cause Discontinuation Rate, Discontinuation Rate due to Adverse Events, in several groupings &#8211; all using Dichotomous [categorical, yes\/no] Outcome Variables. Recall from <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/12\/14\/in-the-land-of-sometimes3\/\">in the land of sometimes<sup>[3]<\/sup>&hellip;<\/a> that with categorical variables, the criteria used matters, and in this case, the criteria for Remission varied among studies. In addition, categorical variables are derived. Continuous variables are independent of criteria, universally measured, and closer to the raw data. Spielmans et al provided the resulting <font color=\"#200020\">Hedges g<\/font> Effect Sizes in a table, so I put them into forest plots. First, here are the <em><font color=\"#200020\">clinician rated metrics<\/font><\/em>&#8230;<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"300\" vspace=\"7\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/spielman-0.gif\" \/><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">&#8230;mirroring the finding in Nelson et al of a moderate effect from the augmentation on Depression [MADRS, HAM-D] and Global Inventory. But Spielmans et al did something else. They looked at the [frequently ignored] <em><font color=\"#200020\">self-report measures<\/font><\/em>:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">The only continuous self-report measure of depression used in these  trials was the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self Report.  Continuous measures of quality of life included the Quality of Life  Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire [Q-LES-Q] and the Short Form 36  Health Survey [SF-36]. The only continuous measure of functional  impairment employed in these trials was the Sheehan Disability Scale  [SDS]&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">These <em><font color=\"#200020\">self-report measures<\/font><\/em> are often given short shrift in articles. But if you think about it, they should be front and center. When I write a prescription, the next meeting usually starts with a report about the effect of the drug &#8211; efficacy and side effects. I recently joked about my patients&#8217; &quot;<font color=\"#200020\">fingers thing<\/font>&quot; as an outcome measure [see&nbsp; <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/12\/12\/an-aside-3\/\">an aside&hellip;<\/a>], but I was also dead serious.<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"300\" vspace=\"7\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/fingers-1.jpg\" \/><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">In the clinical setting, a medicine either helps the patient or it doesn&#8217;t, and that&#8217;s the whole reason for giving it. So I made a forest plot of the <em><font color=\"#200020\">self-report measures<\/font><\/em> Effect Sizes too&#8230;<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"300\" vspace=\"7\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/spielman-1.gif\" \/><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">&#8230; that was certainly informative. Except for Risperidone, these measures were weak to nil. And they looked further. The asterix indicates the results after removing cases with protocol violations for Ariprazole. But when they looked at the Risperidone study, there was something else:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">&#8230;The effects of risperidone may have been exaggerated by the reliance on post hoc analysis rather than a priori analysis in the largest study of the drug, as the effect of the drug was greater at 6 wk (g= 0.46) than at the prespecified primary end point of 4 wk [g= 0.32].<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\">&#8230;The effect of aripiprazole on quality of life\/functioning should be interpreted with caution, as the effect for the drug on the SDS was very small and no longer statistically significant when patients who violated study protocol were excluded from analysis [g=0.12, p=0.08]. <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Similarly, the effect of risperidone on quality of life\/functioning should be interpreted tentatively since it is largely driven by post hoc analyses<\/font><\/strong>.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">One important thing to keep in mind about meta-analyses, for all the clarity they bring by including a range of studies, they also hide the details and context of any given study by simply reporting &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">the numbers<\/font><\/em>.&quot; And this is such a case. Most of the depression data and all of the SDS and Q-LES-Q numbers for Risperidone come from a 2007 Janssen report by <em><font color=\"#200020\">Mahmoud et al<\/font><\/em> &#8211; an all Janssen employees article with a tainted history [see <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/hcrenewal.blogspot.com\/2008\/01\/antipsychotic-drugs-for-depression.html\">ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS FOR DEPRESSION?<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/09\/15\/trembling-earth-mirrored-water\/\">trembling earth, mirrored water&hellip;<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/09\/17\/racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations\/\" target=\"_blank\">racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations&hellip;<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/09\/18\/optional-reading\/\" target=\"_blank\">optional reading&hellip;<\/a>, etc]. This was a darkest hour that involved a 2005 review article on this topic by Dr. Nemeroff [<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.josephmatta.com\/Journal%20Club\/Week%205\/nemeroff%20atypical%20antipsychotics%20refractory%20depression%20%20%20%20%20%20%20anxiety.pdf\">Use of Atypical Antipsychotics in Refractory Depression and Anxiety<\/a>]; a 2006 article by Rapaport, Keller, Nemeroff, Mahmoud and other Janssen employees initially claiming efficacy for Risperidone augmentation, but later declared negative by the first author [see <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/npp\/journal\/v31\/n11\/full\/1301113a.html\" target=\"_blank\">Effects   of risperidone augmentation in patients with treatment-resistant   depression: Results of open-label treatment followed by double-blind   continuation<\/a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/npp\/journal\/v33\/n10\/full\/1301613a.html\">Response by Dr. Bernard Carroll<\/a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/npp\/journal\/v33\/n10\/full\/1301614a.html\">Author&#8217;s Reply<\/a>]; and much much more. So I would say that Spielmans et al&#8217;s caution to &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">interpret&#8230; tentatively<\/font><\/em>&quot; the Risperidone data is an understatement at best. They might just as well substitute &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">ignore altogether<\/font><\/em>.&quot;<\/div>\n<p>  <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">There&#8217;s nothing particularly wrong with the 2009 Nelson and Papakostas meta-analysis. They reported  &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">the numbers<\/font><\/em>&quot; accurately. But we owe a debt of gratitude to Spielmans et al for going the extra mile and looking critically at the nuances of the individual studies involved [many more findings than mentioned here]. They make the risk\/benefit equation come alive for the clinicians who actually use these drugs and the patients who take them&#8230;<\/div>\n<hr size=\"1\" \/>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><em><strong><font color=\"#200020\">UPDATE:<\/font><\/strong> <font color=\"#200020\">I failed to mention that Spielmans et al also compiled those Adverse Events with significant Effect Sizes [p<u>&lt;<\/u>0.10] shown below [truncated]:<\/font><\/em><\/sup><\/div>\n<p>  <\/p>\n<div align=\"center\"><img decoding=\"async\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/spielman-2.gif\" \/><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The topic here is augmentation with Atypical Antipsychotics in treatment resistant depression [once again], but it&#8217;s also about meta-analyses in general. In my recent in the land of sometimes[3]&hellip;, I was looking at the techniques used in making the forest plots now widely used in meta-analyses. It came to mind as I was comparing these [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62387"}],"version-history":[{"count":54,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62387\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62441,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62387\/revisions\/62441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}