Magnitude of change with antidepressants and placebo in antidepressant clinical trials using structured, taped and appraised rater interviews (SIGMA-RAPS) compared to trials using traditional semi-structured interviews

The conundrum of depression clinical trials: one size does not fit all

In this paper we review the history of antidepressant (AD) development, since the discovery of imipramine in 1957 to the present day. Through this exploration we will show that the increasing placebo response is likely a red herring and that a higher magnitude of placebo response is not an adequate explanation for AD trials' high failure rates. As a better explanation for their lack of success, we will examine some of the fundamental flaws of AD clinical trials and their origins in historical forces. We focus on underpowering, which occurs as a consequence of unrealistic expectations for AD performance. In addition, we describe the lack of precision in the depression outcome measurements for the past 40 years and show how these measures contrast with those used in clinical trials of other chronic diseases, which use simpler outcome measures. Finally, we describe the role of regulatory agencies in influencing clinical trial design and how the assumption that 'one size fits all' for the past 60 years has led to flawed design of AD clinical trials.

Has the rising placebo response impacted antidepressant clinical trial outcome? Data from the US Food and Drug Administration 1987-2013

More than fifteen years ago, it was noted that the failure rate of antidepressant clinical trials was high, and such negative outcomes were thought to be related to the increasing magnitude of placebo response. However, there is considerable debate regarding this phenomenon and its relationship to outcomes in more recent antidepressant clinical trials. To investigate this, we accessed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews for sixteen antidepressants (85 trials, 115 trial arms, 23,109 patients) approved between 1987 and 2013. We calculated the magnitude of placebo and antidepressant responses, antidepressant-placebo differences, as well as the effect sizes and success rates, and compared these measures over time. Exploratory analysis investigated potential changes in trial design and conduct over time. As expected, the magnitude of placebo response has steadily grown in the past 30 years, increasing since 2000 by 6.4% (r=0.46, p<0.001). Contrary to expectations, a similar increase has occurred in the magnitude of antidepressant response (6.0%, r=0.37, p<0.001). Thus, the effect sizes (0.30 vs. 0.29, p=0.42) and the magnitude of antidepressant-placebo differences (10.5% vs. 10.3%, p=0.37) have remained statistically equivalent. Furthermore, the frequency of positive trial arms has gone up in the past 15 years (from 47.8% to 63.8%), but this difference in frequency has not reached statistical significance. Trial design features that were previously associated with a possible lower magnitude of placebo response were not implemented, and their relationship to the magnitude of placebo response could not be replicated. Of the 34 recent trials, two implemented enhanced interview techniques, but both of them were unsuccessful. The results of this study suggest that the relationship between the magnitude of placebo response and the outcome of antidepressant clinical trials is weak at best. These data further indicate that antidepressant-placebo differences are about the same for all of the sixteen antidepressants approved by the FDA in the past thirty years.

Antidepressants versus placebo in major depression: an overview

Although the early antidepressant trials which included severely ill and hospitalized patients showed substantial drug-placebo differences, these robust differences have not held up in the trials of the past couple of decades, whether sponsored by pharmaceutical companies or non-profit agencies. This narrowing of the drug-placebo difference has been attributed to a number of changes in the conduct of clinical trials. First, the advent of DSM-III and the broadening of the definition of major depression have led to the inclusion of mildly to moderately ill patients into antidepressant trials. These patients may experience a smaller magnitude of antidepressant-placebo differences. Second, drug development regulators, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have had a significant, albeit underappreciated, role in determining how modern antidepressant clinical trials are designed and conducted. Their concerns about possible false positive results have led to trial designs that are poor, difficult to conduct, and complicated to analyze. Attempts at better design and patient selection for antidepressant trials have not yielded the expected results. As of now, antidepressant clinical trials have an effect size of 0.30, which, although similar to the effects of treatments for many other chronic illnesses, such as hypertension, asthma and diabetes, is less than impressive.