| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
REVIEW ARTICLE |
Department of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Brown University School of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI 02905, USA
Correspondence: Dr Michael A. Posternak, Depression Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, Suite 4 01, Boston, MA 02114, USA. Email: mposternak{at}partners.org
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Aims To estimate the therapeutic impact of follow-up assessments on placebo response in antidepressant trials.
Method Double-blind, placebo-controlled antidepressant trials that reported weekly changes in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) scores over 6 weeks were selected. Included studies (n=41) were divided into those that conducted four, five or six follow-up assessments. Reductions in HRSD scores as a function of the different follow-up schedules were compared.
Results An extra follow-up visit at week 3 was associated with a 0.86 further reduction in HRSD score; an extra visit at week 5 was associated with a 0.67 further reduction. These effects represented approximately 34–44% of the placebo response that occurred over these time frames. Two additional visits were associated with twice the reduction in HRSD score than one, suggesting that the therapeutic impact of assessment visits is cumulative and proportional. A comparable therapeutic effect was also found in participants receiving active medication.
Conclusions Follow-up assessments in antidepressant treatment trials incur a significant therapeutic effect for participants on placebo, and this represents about 40% of the placebo response.
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In the present study, we sought to evaluate the therapeutic impact of frequent follow-up assessments. In standard anti-depressant trials, participants are usually seen on a weekly basis to assess depression severity, level of functioning and side-effects. Such visits typically last 30 min or more and are conducted by trained research assistants over the course of 6 weeks. The impact of so much contact with a healthcare provider is unknown but could be substantial. Furthermore, this amount of contact is much greater than in routine clinical practice where two to three 15-min visits for management of medication are the norm (Posternak et al, 2002a). To evaluate the impact of these follow-up assessments, we conducted a meta-analysis of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled anti-depressant trials published over the past two decades. We primarily focused on the impact that follow-up assessments had on the placebo response but also examined their effect on participants receiving active medication.
|
|
METHOD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Studies were included if they: (a) were in English; (b) were published from January 1981 through December 2001; (c) were primarily composed of out-patients with major depressive disorder according to Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC; Spitzer et al, 1978); (d) had at least 20 participants in the placebo group; (e) randomly assigned participants to receive a putative antidepressant drug or drugs and placebo; (f) reported the total number of participants assigned to placebo and medication group(s); (g) assessed participants under double-blind conditions; and (h) utilised the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD; Hamilton, 1960) to assess improvement. We excluded studies that did not report mean baseline HRSD scores, did not present weekly or biweekly (every other week) changes in HRSD scores, evaluated agents with unproven antidepressant properties or evaluated accepted anti-depressant agents that were used at subtherapeutic doses, or focused on specific subpopulations of patients such as the elderly. Forty-seven trials that met these inclusion criteria were included in our original meta-analysis. Of these, we excluded six studies (Claghorn et al, 1983; Dominguez et al, 1985; Hormazabal et al, 1985; Amsterdam et al, 1986; Ferguson et al, 1994; Khan, 1995) for the present meta-analysis because they did not conduct outcome assessments at week 6.
Follow-up schedules
For the 41 studies included in the present meta-analysis, three types of
follow-up schedules were used: 15 studies
(Cohn & Wilcox, 1985;
Byerley et al, 1988;
Cohn et al, 1989;
Lineberry et al,
1990; Reimherr et al,
1990; Smith et al,
1990; Fontaine et al,
1994; Heiligenstein et
al, 1994; Wilcox et
al, 1994; Bremner,
1995; Claghorn & Lesem,
1995; Fabre et al,
1995; Mendels et al,
1995; Claghorn et al,
1996; Schatzberg,
2000) conducted weekly follow-up assessments over the course of 6
weeks (weekly cohort); 19 studies
(Feighner & Boyer, 1989;
Versiani et al, 1989;
Gelenberg et al,
1990; Claghorn et al,
1992; Cohn & Wilcox,
1992; Fabre, 1992;
Kiev, 1992;
Rickels et al, 1992;
Shrivastava et al,
1992; Smith & Glaudin,
1992; Mendels et al,
1993; Cunningham et
al, 1994; Cunningham,
1997; Thase, 1997;
Khan et al, 1998;
Rudolph et al, 1998;
Rudolph & Feiger, 1999;
Silverstone & Ravindran,
1999; Stahl, 2000)
conducted assessments at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 without an assessment at week
5 (skip week 5 cohort); 7 studies
(Feighner et al,
1983; Merideth & Feighner,
1983; Rickels et al,
1985; Mendels & Schless,
1986; Rickels et al,
1991; Anonymous,
1994; Laakman et al,
1995) conducted assessments at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 6 without
assessments at weeks 3 and 5 (skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort). We utilised these
differences in follow-up schedules as a way to focus on the specific
therapeutic effects of follow-up assessments.
Establishing reduction in HRSD scores
The method for establishing mean baseline scores and weekly improvement in
HRSD scores is the same as in our previous meta-analysis
(Posternak & Zimmerman,
2005). Baseline HRSD scores and weekly reductions in HRSD scores
were established for each study, and all analyses accounted for differences in
sample size between studies. Some studies depicted changes in HRSD scores
graphically. In these instances, weekly changes in HRSD scores were obtained
by measuring each data-point with rounding to the nearest 0.5. A research
assistant who was unaware of the purposes of the study remeasured each
data-point. Of the 476 data-points extracted from graphs, 456 (95.8%) were
remeasured by the research assistant within 0.5 points, suggesting that data
extraction was performed reliably and without bias.
Hypotheses
We hypothesised that follow-up assessments would have a discernible
therapeutic effect on placebo response rates. Differences in follow-up
schedules allowed us to compare reductions in HRSD scores in cohorts that met
on a weekly basis with those that by design skipped 1 or 2 weeks. Our specific
hypotheses were: (a) reductions in HRSD scores from week 4 to week 6 will be
greater for the weekly cohort compared with the skip week 5 and skip weeks 3
and 5 cohort; (b) reductions in HRSD scores from week 2 to week 4 will be
greater for the weekly cohort and the skip week 5 cohort compared with the
skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort; (c) there will be a proportional and cumulative
therapeutic effect of having multiple extra assessments; to examine this
question, we compared reductions in HRSD scores from week 2 to week 6 in the
skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort, skip week 5 cohort, and the weekly cohort; (d) to
confirm that placebo effects do not differ between cohorts, we predicted that
reductions in HRSD scores would be comparable between cohorts from baseline
through week 2; because we considered this the most direct method to confirm
that there are no random differences in placebo response rates, we deemed it
unnecessary to control for potential confounding variables such as fixed
v. flexible dose design, year of publication, etc.; (e) if follow-up
assessments are found to convey a therapeutic effect for participants
receiving placebo, we would predict that all of the above findings would be
replicated in cohorts receiving antidepressant medication.
Finally, if follow-up assessments convey a non-specific therapeutic effect, we hypothesised that treatment effect sizes would be greater in trials with fewer follow-up assessments. However, only a handful of studies published weekly or end-point standard deviations. Therefore, we were unable to establish effect sizes or confidence intervals.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
For participants randomised to active medication, the weekly cohort comprised 1507 people from 25 cohorts (some studies included more than one active medication group); the skip week 5 cohort comprised 2284 people from 31 cohorts and the skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort comprised 820 participants from 9 cohorts. The baseline HRSD scores for these three groups were 25.6 (s.d.=1.82), 25.9 (s.d.=1.49) and 25.0 (s.d.=2.42) respectively.
Week 5 assessment
From week 4 to week 6, the mean decrease in HRSD scores for cohorts
receiving placebo that met at week 5 (the weekly cohort) was 1.52 points. For
cohorts that did not meet at week 5 (the skip week 5 and the skip weeks 3 and
5 cohorts), the mean decrease in HRSD scores from week 4 to week 6 was 0.85
points. Thus, participants who returned for an extra follow-up visit at week 5
experienced a 0.67 greater reduction in HRSD scores over this 2-week period
than those who did not have a week 5 visit. This difference represents 44% of
the decrease in HRSD scores over this period.
Week 3 assessment
From week 2 to week 4, the mean decrease in HRSD scores for cohorts
receiving placebo that met at week 3 (the weekly cohort and skip week 5
cohort) was 2.56 points. For cohorts that did not have a scheduled follow-up
assessment at week 3 (the skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort), the mean decrease in
HRSD scores from week 2 to week 4 was 1.70 points. Thus, participants who
returned for an extra follow-up visit at week 3 experienced a 0.86 greater
reduction in HRSD scores over this 2-week period than those who did not have a
week 3 follow-up visit. This represents 34% of the decrease in HRSD scores
over this period.
Therapeutic impact of multiple extra assessments
To examine whether there is a cumulative and proportional therapeutic
impact of multiple extra assessments, we compared reductions in HRSD scores
from week 2 to week 6 in the weekly cohort with reductions in the skip week 5
and skip weeks 3 and 5 cohorts. The first group had four scheduled follow-up
assessments, the second group had three and the third group had two.
Reductions in HRSD scores were 4.24, 3.33 and 2.49 points respectively. Thus,
the reduction with one extra assessment (skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort v.
skip week 5 cohort) was 0.84 HRSD points whereas that with two extra
assessments (skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort v. weekly cohort) was 1.75
HRSD points. This suggests that the therapeutic impact of follow-up
assessments is cumulative and proportional.
Control analysis
To evaluate whether placebo effects are otherwise comparable between the
cohorts of interest, we compared reductions in HRSD scores from baseline to
week 2 between the weekly cohort and the skip week 5 and skip weeks 3 and 5
cohorts. Because all three cohorts received weekly follow-up assessments
through week 2, we predicted that reductions in HRSD scores would be similar.
The reduction in HRSD scores from baseline to week 2 in the weekly cohort was
5.35 points. In the two cohorts that subsequently skipped one or two follow-up
assessments, the reduction in HRSD scores was 5.41 points. Thus, placebo
effects were comparable between the cohorts when the frequency of follow-up
visits was the same.
Participants receiving active medication
We repeated all the analyses described above for participants receiving
active medication. Reduction in HRSD score from week 4 to week 6 for the
weekly cohort was 2.35 points compared with 1.38 for cohorts who did not have
a week 5 visit (a difference of 0.97 points). Reduction in HRSD score from
week 2 to week 4 for cohorts that met at week 3 (the weekly cohort and the
skip week 5 cohort) was 3.69 points compared with 2.57 for cohorts that did
not have a week 3 visit (a difference of 1.12 points). Reductions in HRSD
scores from week 2 to week 6 for the weekly cohort, skip week 5 cohort and
skip weeks 3 and 5 cohort were 5.87, 5.05 and 4.29 respectively. One extra
assessment visit therefore accounted for a reduction of 0.76 HRSD points
whereas a second extra assessment accounted for an additional 0.82 points. For
the control analysis, we again compared reductions in HRSD scores from
baseline to week 2 in the weekly cohort with the two cohorts that skipped at
least one follow-up assessment. Reductions in HRSD scores were 7.78 and 7.61
HRSD points respectively, again suggesting comparable treatment effects except
when there were differences in follow-up schedules.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Main results
In the present study, we isolated one of the remaining components –
the therapeutic impact of follow-up assessments – to determine the
importance of this factor to the remaining two-thirds of the placebo response.
We found that scheduling an extra follow-up visit at week 3 was associated
with an additional 0.86-point reduction in HRSD scores, whereas scheduling an
additional week 5 visit was associated with an additional 0.67 reduction in
HRSD scores. These reductions represent approximately 40% of the placebo
response that occurred over their respective time frames. When we examined the
cumulative effect of scheduling two additional follow-up visits, we
found that the therapeutic impact of each visit was cumulative and
proportional. That is, one extra visit was associated with a 0.84 greater
reduction in the HRSD score whereas a second extra visit was associated with a
0.91 further reduction in the HRSD score. As further illustration of the
impact of follow-up assessments on the placebo response, participants who were
assessed on a weekly basis experienced an overall drop in HRSD scores of 9.6
points over the course of 6 weeks. By comparison, participants receiving
placebo who were assessed only four times experienced only a 7.3-point drop in
HRSD score.
Since follow-up assessments had a discernible therapeutic effect for participants receiving placebo, we expected they would also have a discernible and comparable effect for those receiving active medication. Indeed, each of our analyses from the placebo cohorts was replicated for cohorts receiving active medication, as each additional follow-up visit was associated with a further reduction of 0.97–1.12 in HRSD scores.
Design of meta-analysis
The ideal method for evaluating the therapeutic impact of follow-up
assessments on the placebo response would be to randomise participants with
depression receiving placebo to different follow-up schedules. Such a study
has not been performed to date and most likely never will. In the present
meta-analysis, we have in effect randomised cohorts rather than individuals.
Since the methodology of efficacy trials of antidepressants has remained
largely unchanged over the years (Thase,
1999), heterogeneity between studies is likely to be minimal: all
studies involved out-patients with moderate-to-severe depression who received
identical treatment (placebo) over the course of 6 weeks using the same
outcome measure (the HRSD). Where an extra follow-up assessment was conducted,
a clear therapeutic effect was associated with that visit as hypothesised.
Although it is possible that this could be attributable to random differences
between studies, we would argue that this is extremely unlikely. The present
meta-analysis included the majority of acute-phase, placebo-controlled
antidepressant trials published over the past two decades, and our analyses
were therefore based on large sample sizes. Second, improvement on placebo was
comparable between all three cohorts during the first 2 weeks of treatment
when follow-up assessment schedules were identical. As this is the most direct
method for evaluating random differences in placebo response rates, it would
be superfluous to attempt to control for other potential confounding variables
such as year of publication, episode duration, comorbidity, etc. Furthermore,
all of our findings that supported a clear, therapeutic effect from assessment
contact were replicated in cohorts receiving active medication.
We would argue that our results are not undermined by relying solely on published studies. Publication bias is a concern for many meta-analyses because negative trials often go unpublished, and attempts to establish effect sizes may consequently overestimate treatment benefits. The goal of the present study, however, was to estimate the therapeutic impact of follow-up assessments. The lack of inclusion of unpublished studies would only undermine our results if unpublished studies were found to systematically have less therapeutic impact of their assessment visits (for example, if raters in unpublished studies were consistently less empathic). Unpublished studies, however, by virtue of having failed to separate drug from placebo, would be expected to have more rather than less robust placebo response rates, and the therapeutic impact of follow-up assessments might, if anything, be more pronounced.
Limitations
One limitation of our study is that because few studies published weekly or
end-point standard deviations of HRSD scores, we were unable to confirm that
differences between cohorts were statistically significant. Although our
analyses yielded what appears to be a large and consistent effect from extra
follow-up visits, the lack of statistical confirmation warrants caution in
interpreting these findings. We also wondered whether the greater therapeutic
effect found in cohorts that met more frequently might be a consequence of
greater retention rates in these cohorts. In most clinical trials, rating
scores for participants who drop out are handled using the
last-observation-carried-forward method of analysis. Perhaps participants who
do not present on a weekly basis are more likely to drop out and therefore not
have the opportunity to demonstrate improvement. To address this concern, we
evaluated completion rates in each of the three cohorts and found no
correlation between frequency of visits and completion rates: skip week 3 and
5, 58.5% (326 of 557); skip week 5, 62.5% (847 of 1356); weekly, 58.8% (403 of
685). Thus, the therapeutic effect we found does not appear to be a function
of improved adherence.
Design of trials
Considering the relatively modest effect size of FDA-approved
antidepressants over placebo, that side-effects may unmask raters in favour of
eliciting drug–placebo differences
(Greenberg et al,
1992) and that most negative trials never get published, several
investigators have suggested that the benefits of antidepressant medications
have been exaggerated over the years
(Fisher & Greenberg, 1997;
Kirsch & Sapirstein,
1999). Although these arguments are persuasive, we believe an
alternative explanation also exists – that the methodology used to
elicit and establish antidepressant efficacy is inefficient. As reviewed
elsewhere (Posternak et al,
2002b), the methodology used in antidepressant trials
evolved largely from traditions established over three decades ago and has
never undergone empirical testing. Our results suggest that the frequent and
extensive monitoring that occurs in clinical trials confers a significant
therapeutic effect for participants receiving placebo (and active medication).
High placebo response rates reduce treatment effect sizes and increase the
risk that an efficacious agent will be deemed ineffective. Although a
comparable therapeutic effect from follow-up visits was found in participants
randomised to active medication, reducing an equivalent amount of
‘noise’ in both cohorts would have the effect of increasing the
power to detect differences between the active medication and control group
(Cohen, 1988).
Knowing the impact that follow-up assessments have on placebo response rates, the design of antidepressant trials could be modified either by reducing the amount of time devoted to assessing participants in follow-up, reducing the frequency of follow-up assessments, or relying more on off-site raters or interactive computer assessment. Of course, consideration of these changes must be balanced against ethical concerns of having insufficient monitoring over the course of a clinical trial. This would apply both to participants randomised to placebo and to those receiving a putative antidepressant agent, especially if there are concerns regarding the potential for increased suicidal ideation following the initiation of an antidepressant.
Explaining the placebo response
Our results suggest that the follow-up assessment schedules of standard
antidepressant efficacy trials convey a significant therapeutic effect for
participants receiving placebo, and that these assessment visits account for
an estimated 40% of the placebo response. This does not take into account the
therapeutic effect of the initial evaluation, which is typically much more
extensive than follow-up assessments and would be expected to convey a larger
therapeutic effect. For years, there has been much speculation as to which
ingredients comprise the powerful and seemingly magical placebo pill, with
some investigators even suggesting that different coloured pills may be
associated with different placebo response rates
(Jacobs & Nordan, 1979;
Buckalew & Coffield, 1982).
Our findings suggest that, after accounting for spontaneous improvement, the
placebo response in trials of antidepressants stems largely from the attention
and care received during the course of the clinical trial.
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Anonymous (1994) A multicenter comparative trial of moclobemide, imipramine and placebo in major depressive disorder. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 9, 103 –109.
Bremner, J. D. (1995) A double-blind comparison of Org 3770, amitriptyline, and placebo in major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 56, 519 –525.
Buckalew, L. W. & Coffield, K. E. (1982) An investigation of drug expectancy as a function of capsule color and size and preparation form. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22, 245 –248.
Byerley, W. F., Reimherr, F. W., Wood, D. R., et al (1988) Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor, for the treatment of outpatients with major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8, 112 –115.[Medline]
Claghorn, J. L. & Lesem, M. D. (1995) A double-blind placebo-controlled study of Org 3770 in depressed outpatients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 34, 165 –171.[CrossRef][Medline]
Claghorn, J., Gershon, S., Goldstein, B. J., et al (1983) A double-blind evaluation of zimelidine in comparison to placebo and amitriptyline in patients with major depressive disorder. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 7, 367 –382.[CrossRef][Medline]
Claghorn, J. L., Kiev, A., Rickels, K., et al (1992) Paroxetine versus placebo: a double-blind comparison in depressed patients. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53, 434 –438.
Claghorn, J. L., Earl, C. Q., Walczak, D. D., et al (1996) Fluvoxamine maleate in the treatment of depression: a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with imipramine in outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16, 113 –120.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn), pp. 180 –181. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohn, J. B. & Wilcox, C. (1985) A comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine, and placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 46, 26 –31.
Cohn, J. B. & Wilcox, C. S. (1992) Paroxetine in major depression: a double-blind trial with imipramine and placebo. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53 (suppl. 2), 52 –56.
Cohn, J. B., Collins, G., Ashbrook, E., et al (1989) A comparison of fluoxetine imipramine and placebo in patients with bipolar depressive disorder. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 4, 313 –322.[Medline]
Cunningham, L. A. (1997) Once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and venlafaxine immediate release (IR) in outpatients with major depression. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 9, 157 –164.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cunningham, L. A., Borison, R. L., Carman, J. S., et al (1994) A comparison of venlafaxine, trazodone, and placebo in major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 14, 99 –106.[Medline]
Dominguez, R. A., Goldstien, B. J., Jacobson, A. F., et al (1985) A double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine in depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 46, 84 –87.
Fabre, L. F. (1992) A 6-week, double-blind trial of paroxetine, imipramime. and placebo in depressed outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53 (suppl. 2), 40 –43.
Fabre, L. F., Abuzzahab, F. S., Amin, M., et al (1995) Sertraline safety and efficacy in major depression: a double-blind fixed-dose fixed-dose comparison with placebo. Biological Psychiatry, 38, 592 –602.[CrossRef][Medline]
Feighner, J. P. & Boyer, W. F. (1989) Paroxetine in the treatment of depression: a comparison with imipramine and placebo. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 80 (suppl. 350), 125 –129.[Medline]
Feighner, J. P., Aden, G. C., Fabre, L. F., et al (1983) Comparison of alprazolam, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of depression. JAMA, 249, 3057 –3064.[Abstract]
Ferguson, J. M., Mendels, J. & Manowitz, N. R. (1994) Dothiepin versus doxepin in major depression: results of a multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 258 –263.
Fisher, S. & Greenberg, R. P. (eds) (1997) From Placebo to Panacea. John Wiley and Sons.
Fontaine, R., Ontiveros, A., Elie, R., et al (1994) A double-blind comparison of nefazodone, imipramine, and placebo in major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 234 –241.
Gelenberg, A. J., Wojcik, J. D., Falk, W. E., et al (1990) Clovoxamine in the treatment of depressed outpatients: a double-blind, parallel-group comparison against amitriptyline and placebo. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31, 307 –314.[CrossRef][Medline]
Goleman, D. (1995) Psychologists dispute value of antidepressants. New York Times, 29 November , p. C1910.
Greenberg, R. P., Bornstein, R. F., Greenberg, M. D., et al (1992) A meta-analysis of antidepressant outcome under ‘blinder’ conditions. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 60, 664 –669.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hamilton, M. (1960) A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 23, 56 –62.[Medline]
Harrington, A. (1999) The Placebo Effect. Harvard University Press.
Heiligenstein, J. H., Tollefson, G. D. & Faries, D. E. (1994) Response patterns of depressed outpatients with and without melancholia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine versus placebo. Journal of Affective Disorders, 30, 163 –173.[CrossRef][Medline]
Horgan, J. (1998) Science triumphant? Not so fast. New York Times, 19 January , p. A1917.
Hormazabal, L., Omer, L. M. O. & Ismail, S. (1985) Cianopramine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depressed patients – a placebo placebo-controlled study. Psychopharmacology, 86, 205 –208.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jacobs, K. W. & Nordan, F. M. (1979) Classification of placebo drugs: effect of color. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 367 –372.[Medline]
Khan, A., Upton, V., Rudolph, R. L., et al (1998) The use of venlafaxine in the treatment of major depression and major depression associated with anxiety: a dose–response study. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18, 19 –25.[CrossRef][Medline]
Khan, A., Khan, S. & Brown, W. A. (2002) Are placebo controls necessary to test new antidepressants and anxiolytics? International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 5, 193 –197.[CrossRef][Medline]
Khan, M. C. (1995) A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 5-weeks’ study of Org 3770 (mirtazapine) in major depression. Human Psychopharmacology, 10 (suppl. 2), S119 –S124.[CrossRef]
Kiev, A. (1992) A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of paroxetine in depressed outpatients. Journal Clinical of Psychiatry, 53 (suppl. 2), 27 –29.
Kirsch, I. (1985) Response expectancy of experience and behavior. American Psychologist, 40, 1189 –1202.[CrossRef]
Kirsch, I. & Sapirstein, G. (1999) Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: a meta-analysis of antidepressant medications. In How Expectancies Shape Experience (ed. I. Kirsch), pp. 303–320. American Psychological Association.
Laakman, G., Faltermaier-Temizel, M., Bossert-Zaudig, S., et al (1995) Treatment of depressive outpatients with lorazepam, alprazolam, amitriptyline and placebo. Psychopharmacology, 120, 109 –115.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lineberry, C. G., Johnston, A., Raymond, R. N., et al (1990) A fixed-dose (300 mg) efficacy study of bupropion and placebo in depressed outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 51, 194 –199.
Mendels, J. & Schless, A. P. (1986) Comparative efficacy of alprazolam, imipramine, and placebo administered once a day in treating depressed patients. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 47, 357 –361.
Mendels, J., Johnston, R., Mattes, J., et al (1993) Efficacy and safety of b.i.d. doses of venlafaxine in a dose–response study. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 29, 169 –174.[Medline]
Mendels, J., Reimherr, F., Marcus, R. N., et al (1995) A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of two dose ranges of nefazodone in the treatment of depressed outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 56 (suppl. 6), 30 –36.
Merideth, C. H. & Feighner, J. P. (1983) A double-blind, controlled evaluation of zimelidine, imipramine and placebo in patients with primary affective disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 68 (suppl. 308), 70–79.
Orne, M. T. (1969) Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In Artifact in Behavioral Research (eds R. Rosenthal & R. L. Rosnow), pp. 143 –179. Academic Press.
Posternak, M. A. & Zimmerman, M. (2001) Short-term spontaneous improvement rates in depressed outpatients. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 62, 799 –804.
Posternak, M. A. & Zimmerman, M. (2005) Is there a delay in the antidepressant effect? A meta-analsyis. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66, 148 –158.
Posternak, M. A., Zimmerman, M. & Solomon, D. A.
(2002a) Integrating outcomes research into clinical
practice: a pilot study. Psychiatric Services,
53, 335
–336.
Posternak, M. A., Zimmerman, M., Keitner, G. I., et al
(2002b) A reevaluation of the exclusion criteria
used in antidepressant efficacy trials. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 159, 191
–200.
Posternak, M. A., Solomon, D. A., Leon, A. C., et al (2006) The naturalistic course of untreated major depressive disorder. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 194, 324 –329.[CrossRef]
Reimherr, F. W., Chouinard, G., Cohn, C. K., et al(1990) Antidepressant efficacy of sertraline: a double-blind, placebo- and amitriptyline-controlled, multicenter comparison study in outpatients with major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 51 (suppl. 12), 18–27.
Rickels, K., Feighner, J. P. & Smith, W. T. (1985) Alprazolam, amitriptyline, doxepin, and placebo in the treatment of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 134 –141.[Abstract]
Rickels, K., London, J., Rox, I., et al (1991) Adinazolam, diazepam, imipramine, and placebo in major depressive disorder: a controlled study. Pharmacopsychiatry, 24, 127 –131.[Medline]
Rickels, K., Amsterdam, J., Clary, C., et al (1992) The efficacy and safety of paroxetine compared with placebo in outpatients with major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53 (suppl. 2), 30–32.
Rudolph, R. L. & Feiger, A. D. (1999) A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 56, 171 –181.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rudolph, R. L., Fabre, L. F., Feighner, J. P., et al (1998) A randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-response trial of venlafaxine hydrochloride in the treatment of major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 116 –122.
Schatzberg, A. F. (2000) Clinical efficacy of reboxetine in major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61 (suppl. 10), 31–38.
Shrivastava, R. K., Shrivastava, S. P., Overweg, N., et al (1992) A double-blind comparison of paroxetine, imipramine, and placebo in major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53 (suppl. 2), 48–51.
Silverstone, P. H. & Ravindran, A. (1999) Once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) compared with fluoxetine in outpatients with depression and anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60, 22 –28.
Smith, W. T. & Glaudin, V. (1992) A placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine in the treatment of major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53 (suppl. 2), 36 –39.
Smith, W. T., Glaudin, V., Panagides, J., et al (1990) Mirtazapine vs. amitriptyline vs. placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 20, 191 –196.
Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J. & Robins, E. (1978) Research diagnostic criteria: rationale and reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 773 –782.[Abstract]
Stahl, S. M. (2000) Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 894 –901.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thase, M. E. (1997) Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) in outpatients with major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 58, 393 –398.
Thase, M. E. (1999) How should efficacy be evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatments for depression? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60 (suppl. 4), 23 –31.
Versiani, M., Oggero, U., Alterwain, P., et al (1989) A double-blind comparative trial of moclobemide v. imipramine and placebo in major depressive episodes. British Journal of Psychiatry, 155 (suppl. 6), 72–77.
Walsh, B. T., Seidman, S. N., Sysko, R., et al
(2002) Placebo response in studies of major depression.
Variable, substantial, and growing. JAMA,
287, 1840
–1847.
Wilcox, C. S., Cohn, J. B., Katz, B. B., et al (1994) A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing mianserin and amitriptyline in moderately depressed outpatients. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 9, 271 –279.[Medline]
Received for publication July 10, 2006. Accepted for publication October 31, 2006.
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. S. Oken Placebo effects: clinical aspects and neurobiology Brain, June 21, 2008; (2008) awn116v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Anderson, I. Ferrier, R. Baldwin, P. Cowen, L Howard, G Lewis, K Matthews, R. McAllister-Williams, R. Peveler, J Scott, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines J Psychopharmacol, June 1, 2008; 22(4): 343 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Nutt and A. Malizia Why does the world have such a `down' on antidepressants? J Psychopharmacol, May 1, 2008; 22(3): 223 - 226. [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
