IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0020811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antidepressant Response in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Regression Comparison of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Florian Naudet
  • Anne Solène Maria
  • Bruno Falissard

Abstract

Background: To compare response to antidepressants between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials. Methods and Findings: Published and unpublished studies (from 1989 to 2009) were searched for by 2 reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, bibliographies and by mailing key organisations and researchers. RCTs and observational studies on fluoxetine or venlafaxine in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder reported in English, French or Spanish language were included in the main analysis. Studies including patients from a wider spectrum of depressive disorders (anxious depression, minor depressive episode, dysthymia) were added in a second analysis. The main outcome was the pre-/post-treatment difference on depression scales standardised to 100 (17-item or 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression or Montgomery and Åsberg Rating Scale) in each study arm. A meta-regression was conducted to adjust the comparison between observational studies and RCTs on treatment type, study characteristics and average patient characteristics. 12 observational studies and 109 RCTs involving 6757 and 11035 patients in 12 and 149 arms were included in the main analysis. Meta-regression showed that the standardised treatment response in RCTs is greater by a magnitude of 4.59 (2.61 to 6.56). Study characteristics were related to standardised treatment response, positively (study duration, number of follow-up assessments, outpatients versus inpatients, per protocol analysis versus intention to treat analysis) or negatively (blinded design, placebo design). At patient level, response increased with baseline severity and decreased with age. Results of the second analysis were consistent with this. Conclusions: Response to antidepressants is greater in RCTs than in observational studies. Observational studies should be considered as a necessary complement to RCTs.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian Naudet & Anne Solène Maria & Bruno Falissard, 2011. "Antidepressant Response in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Regression Comparison of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-10, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020811
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020811
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020811&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0020811?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020811. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.