One (effect) size does not fit at all: Interpreting clinical significance and effect sizes in depression treatment trials

Absolute and relative outcomes of psychotherapies for eight mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychotherapies are first-line treatments for most mental disorders, but their absolute outcomes (i.e., response and remission rates) are not well studied, despite the relevance of such information for health care users, providers and policy makers. We aimed to examine absolute and relative outcomes of psychotherapies across eight mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD), social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD). We used a series of living systematic reviews included in the Metapsy initiative (www.metapsy.org), with a common strategy for literature search, inclusion of studies and extraction of data, and a common format for the analyses. Literature search was conducted in major bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up to January 1, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials comparing psychotherapies for any of the eight mental disorders, established by a diagnostic interview, with a control group (waitlist, care-as-usual, or pill placebo). We conducted random-effects model pairwise meta-analyses. The main outcome was the absolute rate of response (at least 50% symptom reduction between baseline and post-test) in the treatment and control conditions. Secondary outcomes included the relative risk (RR) of response, and the number needed to treat (NNT). Random-effects meta-analyses of the included 441 trials (33,881 patients) indicated modest response rates for psychotherapies: 0.42 (95% CI: 0.39-0.45) for MDD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33-0.43) for PTSD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.30-0.47) for OCD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33-0.43) for panic disorder; 0.36 (95% CI: 0.30-0.42) for GAD; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.29-0.37) for social anxiety disorder; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.23-0.42) for specific phobia; and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.15-0.36) for BPD. Most sensitivity analyses broadly supported these findings. The RRs were significant for all disorders, except BPD. Our conclusion is that most psychotherapies for the eight mental disorders are effective compared with control conditions, but absolute response rates are modest. More effective treatments and interventions for those not responding to a first-line treatment are needed.

Rationale and design of a double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial of 40 Hz light neurostimulation therapy for depression (FELIX)

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating condition that affects more than 300 million people worldwide. Current treatments are based on a trial-and-error approach, and reliable biomarkers are needed for more informed and personalized treatment solutions. One of the potential biomarkers, gamma-frequency (30-80 Hz) brainwaves, are hypothesized to originate from the excitatory-inhibitory interaction between the pyramidal cells and interneurons. The imbalance between this interaction is described as a crucial pathological mechanism in neuropsychiatric conditions, including MDD, and the modulation of this pathological interaction has been investigated as a potential target. Previous studies attempted to induce gamma activity in the brain using rhythmic light and sound stimuli (GENUS - Gamma Entrainment Using Sensory stimuli) that resulted in neuroprotective effects in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and animal models. Here, we investigate the antidepressant, cognitive, and electrophysiological effects of the novel light therapy approach using 40 Hz masked flickering light for patients diagnosed with MDD.

METHODS AND DESIGN

Sixty patients with a current diagnosis of a major depressive episode will be enrolled in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. The active treatment group will receive 40 Hz masked flickering light stimulation while the control group will receive continuous light matched in color temperature and brightness. Patients in both groups will get daily light treatment in their own homes and will attend four follow-up visits to assess the symptoms of depression, including depression severity measured by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17), cognitive function, quality of life and sleep, and electroencephalographic changes. The primary endpoint is the mean change from baseline to week 6 in depression severity (HAM-D6 subscale) between the groups.

Dopamine in major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo imaging studies

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of global disability. Several lines of evidence implicate the dopamine system in its pathophysiology. However, the magnitude and consistency of the findings are unknown. We address this by systematically reviewing in vivo imaging evidence for dopamine measures in MDD and meta-analysing these where there are sufficient studies.

METHODS

Studies investigating the dopaminergic system using positron emission tomography or single photon emission computed tomography in MDD and a control group were included. Demographic, clinical and imaging measures were extracted from each study, and meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

We identified 43 studies including 662 patients and 801 controls. Meta-analysis of 38 studies showed no difference in mean or mean variability of striatal D2/3 receptor availability (g = 0.06, p = 0.620), or combined dopamine synthesis and release capacity (g = 0.19, p = 0.309). Dopamine transporter (DAT) availability was lower in the MDD group in studies using DAT selective tracers (g = -0.56, p = 0.006), but not when tracers with an affinity for serotonin transporters were included (g = -0.21, p = 0.420). Subgroup analysis showed greater dopamine release (g = 0.49, p = 0.030), but no difference in dopamine synthesis capacity (g = -0.21, p = 0.434) in the MDD group. Striatal D1 receptor availability was lower in patients with MDD in two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis indicates striatal DAT availability is lower, but D2/3 receptor availability is not altered in people with MDD compared to healthy controls. There may be greater dopamine release and lower striatal D1 receptors in MDD, although further studies are warranted. We discuss factors associated with these findings, discrepancies with preclinical literature and implications for future research.

Antidepressants and Social Functioning in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled RCTs

INTRODUCTION

Social functioning (SF) is the ability to fulfil one's social obligations and a key outcome in treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of antidepressants on SF in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

This meta-analysis and its reporting are based on Cochrane Collaboration's Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PRISMA guidelines (protocol registration at OSF). We systematically searched CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed Central, and PsycINFO for double-blind RCTs comparing antidepressants with placebo and reporting on SF. We computed standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

We selected 40 RCTs out of 1,188 records screened, including 16,586 patients (mean age 46.8 years, 64.2% women). In 27 studies investigating patients with MDD (primary depression), antidepressants resulted in a SMD of 0.25 compared to placebo ([95% CI: 0.21; 0.30] I2: 39%). In 13 trials with patients suffering from MDD comorbid with physical conditions or disorders, the summary estimate was 0.24 ([0.10; 0.37] I2: 75%). In comorbid depression, studies with high/uncertain risk of bias had higher SMDs than low-risk studies: 0.29 [0.13; 0.44] versus 0.04 [-0.16; 0.24]; no such effect was evident in primary depression. There was no indication of sizeable reporting bias. SF efficacy correlated with efficacy on depression scores, Spearman's rho 0.67 (p < 0.001), and QoL, 0.63 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of antidepressants on SF is small, similar to its effect on depressive symptoms in primary MDD, and doubtful in comorbid depression. Strong correlations with both antidepressive and QoL effects suggest overlap among domains.

A System for Rapidly Yet Rigorously Evaluating the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT

This tutorial describes a system for rapidly yet rigorously assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The system has 7 criteria, represented by the acronym "BIS FOES." The BIS FOES system directs readers to assess RCTs based on the following 7 criteria: the RCT's use (or not) of effective (1) Blinding; the RCT's use (or not) of (2) Intent-to-Treat Analysis; the RCT's (3) Size and other information reflecting the effectiveness of randomization; the amount of sample lost during (4) Follow-up; the (5) Outcomes examined by the RCT (specifically, the outcome measures used by the RCT), the (6) Effects reported (ie, the statistical and clinical significance of the RCT's primary, secondary, and safety findings), and any (7) Special Considerations (ie, additional strengths, limitations, or notable features of the RCT). The first 6 criteria are of basic importance to the assessment of every RCT, whereas the Special Considerations criteria allows the system to be expanded to include virtually any other important aspect of the RCT. This tutorial explains the importance of these criteria and how to assess them. This tutorial also describes how many BIS FOES criteria can be initially assessed from the RCT Abstract while also directing readers to specific locations in the RCT article where additional important information can be found. We hope that the BIS FOES system will help healthcare trainees, but also potentially clinicians, researchers, and the general public, rapidly and thoroughly assess RCTs.

Educational Intervention Effects on Depression and Anxiety in Patients after Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Depression and anxiety in cardiovascular disease worsen the prognosis of patients. Treatments for these disorders often provide limited improvement. The present study aimed to test, for the first time, the impact of educational technology on anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program. A 12-month randomized controlled trial was conducted, in which 207 patients were randomly assigned to either the experimental (n = 76) or control (n = 69) groups. The intervention involved a structured patient education program provided by medical students who had undergone specially designed training in cardiac rehabilitation. The primary outcomes were death, hospitalization, heart failure, and recurrent myocardial infarction. The study also assessed anxiety and depression. A year later, the experimental group showed a statistically significant decrease in anxiety and depression on the HADS scale, with reductions of 2.0 and 1.9 points, respectively (p < 0.05). The control group showed reductions of 1.5 and 1.2 points (p < 0.05). The difference in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression between the groups at 12 months was -1.29 in favor of the main group (95% CI, -0.7 to -1.88), and the standardized mean difference was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.69). No treatment-related adverse events were observed. The results suggest that educational interventions can have a positive impact on mental health. The study's strengths include a structured intervention, randomization, and long-term follow-up. The limitations include the lack of blinding of study participants and a relatively small sample size.

Initial severity of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)-30, its main subscales plus the PANSS-6, and the relationship to subsequent improvement and trial dropout: a pooled participant-level analysis of 18 placebo-controlled risperidone and paliperidone trials

Greater initial severity on the 30-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-30) correlates positively with antipsychotic-placebo separation and trial dropout, but it is unknown whether these associations are present also on PANSS-derived subscales. We assessed the relationship between initial severity and antipsychotic-placebo separation as measured by PANSS-30 and four PANSS symptom subscales: the positive (PANSS-POS), negative (PANSS-NEG), general (PANSS-GEN) and 6-item (PANSS-6) subscales, using patient-level data from 18 placebo-controlled risperidone and paliperidone trials. Analysis of covariance in the intention-to-treat population (last-observation-carried-forward) was used to assess antipsychotic-placebo separation and trial dropout. Across 6685 participants (90% schizophrenia, 10% schizoaffective disorder), the initial severity-by-treatment interaction was statistically significant for PANSS-30 (beta: -0.155; p < 0.001) and all PANSS subscales (beta range: -0.097 to -0.135; p-value range: < 0.001 to 0.002). In all cases, antipsychotic-placebo differences increased with initial severity. Judging by the distribution of relative outcomes (percent remaining symptoms), the interaction was partly explained by an increased chance of responding, but also by larger numerical responses in those who did respond, as initial severity increased. Except for PANSS-NEG, high initial severity on all PANSS scales predicted increased trial dropout, although not statistically significantly so for PANSS-6. In summary, we thus replicate previous findings showing greater initial severity to predict larger antipsychotic-placebo separation and extend these results to four PANSS subscales. For PANSS-POS and PANSS-GEN, but not for PANSS-NEG and PANSS-6, we also replicate the association between initial severity and trial dropout. Patients with low initial negative symptom severity were identified as a group of particular interest for further study since their results diverged most from the average both with regard to antipsychotic-placebo separation (low separation measured by PANSS-NEG) and trial dropout (high level).

Fifty years on: Serotonin and depression

It has been over 50 years since the original serotonin hypothesis was proposed by the British Psychiatrist Alec Coppen. Recently, some authors have questioned the validity of the hypothesis. In this narrative review, we summarise the evidence for the serotonin hypothesis of depression, focusing on psychopharmacology and molecular imaging, as well as systems-level neuroscience.

Impact of chosen cutoff on response rate differences between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and placebo

Response defined as a 50% reduction in the sum score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17-sum) is often used to assess the efficacy of antidepressants. Critics have, however, argued that dichotomising ratings with a cutoff close to the median may lead to scores clustering on either side, the result being inflation of miniscule drug-placebo differences. Using pooled patient-level data sets from trials of three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (citalopram, paroxetine and sertraline) (n = 7909), and from similar trials of duloxetine (n = 3478), we thus assessed the impact of different cutoffs on response rates. Response criteria were based on (i) HDRS-17-sum, (ii) the sum score of the HDRS-6 subscale (HDRS-6-sum) and (iii) the depressed mood item. The separation between SSRI and placebo with respect to response rates increased when HDRS-17-sum was replaced by HDRS-6-sum or depressed mood as effect parameter and was markedly dependent on SSRI dose. With the exception of extreme cutoff values, differences in response rates were largely similar regardless of where the cutoff was placed, and also not markedly changed by the exclusion of subjects close to the selected cutoff (e.g., ±10%). The observation of similar response rate differences between active drugs and placebo for different cutoffs was corroborated by the analysis of duloxetine data. In conclusion, the suggestion that using a cutoff close to the median when defining response has markedly overestimated the separation between antidepressants and placebo may be discarded.

Beyond Response: Aiming for Quality Remission in Depression

To define treatment response in depression as at least a 50% reduction in total symptom severity is to accept that up to half of patients will continue to have residual symptoms, most commonly low mood/loss of interest, cognitive problems, lack of energy, and difficulty sleeping. In fact, patients’ goals for treatment are to return to premorbid levels of functioning. This highlights the importance of assessing both functional outcomes and symptom improvement when evaluating the efficacy of antidepressant medication. Not all patients who achieve symptomatic response/remission will achieve a functional response/remission. In two studies (one with agomelatine and one with escitalopram), 54% of patients receiving agomelatine and 47% of those receiving escitalopram achieved a symptomatic response, and 53% of patients in each study achieved a functional response. However, 42% of patients receiving agomelatine and 35% of those receiving escitalopram had both a symptomatic and a functional response. The four symptoms of depression with the most marked effect on function are sad mood, impaired concentration, fatigue, and loss of interest. Low energy is particularly associated with poor occupational functioning, highlighting the importance of ongoing assessment of patients with depression, focusing particular attention on the symptoms that affect their ability to function, such as fatigue. Depending on the type of residual symptoms, some patients may benefit from combination therapy, such as adding dopamine modulator therapy. Antidepressant therapy is only effective if patients continue to take their medication, and high rates of early discontinuation have been reported. Therefore, when selecting treatment for depression, physicians can maximize the likelihood of adherence and persistence by taking into account both the antidepressant efficacy of treatment, its adverse effects and acceptability to patients.

Estimates of the minimal important difference to evaluate the clinical significance of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression

The efficacy of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression remains a controversial issue. The minimal important difference (MID) is relevant to judge the clinical significance of treatment effects. In this analysis paper, we discuss estimates of the MID for common depression outcome measures.For the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item Version (HDRS-17), according to both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches, MID estimates range from 3 to 8 points, and the most accurate values are likely between 3 and 5 points. For the 6-item version (HDRS-6), MID estimates range between 2 and 4 points. For both the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), MID estimates range between 3 and 9 points, with estimates of 3-6 points likely being the most accurate. Quality of life appears to be more important to patients than core depression symptoms. We thus also evaluated the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) mental component score, a popular mental-health-related quality of life measure. Its MID estimate is likely about 5 points. By contrast, the average treatment effects of antidepressants on the HDRS-17, HDRS-6, MADRS, BDI-II and SF-36 are 2 points, 1.5 points, 3 points, 2 points and 3-5 points, respectively.In conclusion, the efficacy of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression consistently fails to exceed the lower bound of the MID estimates for common depression outcome measures. The clinical significance of antidepressants thus remains uncertain and we call for more research on quality of life measures, which are the patients' most valued outcome domains.

Newer generation antidepressants and withdrawal effects: reconsidering the role of antidepressants and helping patients to stop

In England, the prescribing of antidepressants, primarily the newer generation antidepressant classes, has steadily increased over recent years. There is ongoing debate about how the efficacy of these drugs is viewed, their place in therapy and the harms associated with stopping them. Much of the evidence of their efficacy comes from short-term placebo-controlled trials which tend not to include outcomes that are of greatest relevance to patients, such as social functioning or quality of life, but rather restrict outcomes narrowly to symptom measures. On such measures these studies do not demonstrate clinically significant differences from placebo for depression. A range of adverse effects are also recognised, often greater in naturalistic studies of long-term antidepressants users than those measured in short-term efficacy studies, including emotional numbing, sexual difficulties, fatigue and weight gain. There is increasing recognition that withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants are common and that these symptoms can be severe and long-lasting in some patients. Recent guidance on how to stop antidepressants in a tolerable way has been presented by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We believe that increasing awareness about the difficulty that some patients have in stopping antidepressants should lead to more cautious prescribing practice, with antidepressants given to fewer patients and for shorter periods of time. This article discusses the perceived benefits and harms of antidepressant use.

Usefulness of Hamilton rating scale for depression subset scales and full versions for electroconvulsive therapy

Objectives

We investigated the predictive value of subset scales and full versions of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) for therapeutic outcomes in ECT.

Methods

This secondary analysis of patients with major depression (N = 136; 63% female; age = 56.7 [SD = 14.8]) from the EFFECT-Dep trial (NCT01907217) examined the predictive value of Evans-6, Toronto-7, Gibbons-8 and Maier-Philip 6 HAMD subset scales and three ‘full’ versions (HAMD-17, HAMD-21 and HAMD-24) on therapeutic outcomes. We also examined early improvement on subset scales and full versions as predictors of response and remission and explored predictive abilities of individual HAMD-24 items.

Results

The subset scales and full scales lacked sufficient predictive ability for response and remission. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified a lack of discriminative capacity of HAMD subset scales and full versions at baseline to predict response and remission. Only the Maier-Philip-6 was significantly associated with percentage reduction in HAMD-24 scores from baseline to end of ECT course. Early improvement on most of the subset scales and full versions was a sensitive and specific predictor of response and remission. Four of the HAMD-24 items were significantly associated with response and one with remission.

Conclusions

Limited utility of the HAMD subset scales and full versions in this context highlight a need for more tailored depression rating scales for ECT.

The effects of psychotherapies for depression on response, remission, reliable change, and deterioration: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyses of psychotherapies usually report effects sizes, while clinicians and patients need to know the proportion of patients who benefit from therapy. We conducted a meta-analysis of therapies for depression reporting the rates of response (50% symptom reduction), remission (HAM-D <7), clinical significant deterioration for psychotherapy, and control conditions (CAU, waitlist, and pill placebo), as well as the relative risk of these outcomes and the numbers-needed-to-be-treated (NNTs).

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases and included 228 randomized trials comparing psychotherapy for depression against control conditions (75 with low risk of bias). Only therapies with at least 10 trials were included. We extracted outcomes from the studies, and for those studies not reporting the outcomes, we used a validated method to estimate the rates.

RESULTS

The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 41% (95% CI: 38~43), 17% (15~20) for usual care (CAU), and 16% (95% CI: 14~18) for waitlist. No significant differences between types of therapy were found. The NNT for therapy versus CAU was 5.3 and versus waitlist 3.9. About one third of patients remitted after therapy compared with 7%-13% in control conditions. The rates of deterioration were 5% versus 12%-13%, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses supported the general findings.

CONCLUSION

Psychotherapies for depression may be effective compared with control conditions, but more than half of patients receiving therapy do not respond and only one third remitted. More effective treatments and treatment strategies such as sequencing and combining treatments are clearly needed.

Determining maximal achievable effect sizes of antidepressant therapies in placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Antidepressants outperform placebo with an effect size of around 0.30. It has been suggested that effect sizes as high as 0.875 are necessary for a minimal clinically important difference. Whether such effect sizes are achievable in placebo-controlled trials is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to assess what effect sizes are theoretically achievable in placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants.

METHODS

Patient-level analyses comparing Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) outcomes for simulated antidepressant therapies to placebo-treated participants (n = 2201) from clinical trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

RESULTS

An optimally effective antidepressant, where all treated participants achieve HDRS-17 scores comparable to those displayed by healthy volunteers (remission-type model), had a maximum effect size of 1.75, with a mean difference of 11.6 points on the HDRS-17. In simulations where patients received an additional 50% symptom reduction over that obtained with placebo (improvement-type model), the maximum effect size was 1.08 with a mean HDRS-17 difference of 7.2. When adjusting for normal rates of treatment discontinuation, maximum effect sizes were 1.10 (remission-type model) and 0.76 (improvement-type model) with HDRS-17 mean differences of 8.8 and 5.6, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Three methodological issues (i) a large and variable placebo response, (ii) a high rate of dropout and (iii) HDRS-17-ratings significantly larger than zero in healthy volunteers, reduce the degree of treatment-placebo separation achievable in depression trials. Assuming that those who discontinue treatment have only partial response, even a highly effective antidepressant would have difficulties surpassing such effect size cut-offs as have been suggested to signify a minimal clinically important difference.

Is There an App for That?: Ethical Issues in the Digital Mental Health Response to COVID-19

Well before COVID-19, there was growing excitement about the potential of various digital technologies such as tele-health, smartphone apps, or AI chatbots to revolutionize mental healthcare. As the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread across the globe, clinicians warned of the mental illness epidemic within the coronavirus pandemic. Now, funding for digital mental health technologies is surging and many researchers are calling for widespread adoption to address the mental health sequelae of COVID-19. Reckoning with the ethical implications of these technologies is urgent because decisions made today will shape the future of mental health research and care for the foreseeable future. We contend that the most pressing ethical issues concern (1) the extent to which these technologies demonstrably improve mental health outcomes and (2) the likelihood that wide-scale adoption will exacerbate the existing health inequalities laid bare by the pandemic. We argue that the evidence for efficacy is weak and that the likelihood of increasing inequalities is high. First, we review recent trends in digital mental health. Next, we turn to the clinical literature to show that many technologies proposed as a response to COVID-19 are unlikely to improve outcomes. Then, we argue that even evidence-based technologies run the risk of increasing health disparities. We conclude by suggesting that policymakers should not allocate limited resources to the development of many digital mental health tools and should focus instead on evidence-based solutions to address mental health inequalities.

Clinically meaningful changes on depressive symptom measures and patient-reported outcomes in patients with treatment-resistant depression

OBJECTIVE

To use the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale to estimate clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

METHODS

Pooled data were derived from two 4-week, randomized, active-controlled studies evaluating esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus oral antidepressant (OAD) or OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) in adults with TRD (N = 565). CGI-S, MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 scores were obtained at baseline and over 4 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, change scores on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 that corresponded to a clinically meaningful (1-point) or clinically substantial (2-point) change on the CGI-S scale were identified.

RESULTS

Clinically meaningful changes in CGI-S scores after 28 days corresponded to 6-, 4-, and 3-point changes from baseline on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. Similarly, a 2-point CGI-S score change (clinically substantial change) corresponded to a 12-, 8-, and 6-point change on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. The proportion of patients showing substantial clinical improvement in the ESK plus OAD group versus the OAD plus PBO group after 28 days of treatment favored ESK plus OAD: 69.0% vs 55.3% (MADRS), 64.5% vs 48.9% (SDS), and 77.1% vs 64.7% (PHQ-9).

CONCLUSION

We provide a basis for identifying clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as assessed with commonly used outcome measures for depression to facilitate the translation of clinical trial results into clinical practice.

Esketamine for treatment-resistant depression

Generic name: Esketamine hydrochloride Brand name: Spravato Formulation: 28mg in 0.2ml nasal spray solution Market Authorisation holder: Janssen-Cilag International NV Indication: Treatment resistant major depressive disorder in adults who have failed to respond to at least two different antidepressants during the current moderate to severe episode. To be used in combination with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Dose: The starting dose is 56 mg for adults aged <65 years and 28 mg for adults aged ≥65 years ¹ Subsequent doses (56 mg or 84 mg for those <65 years; 28 mg, 56 mg or 84 mg for those ≥65 years) are given twice a week for 4 weeks, followed by once a week for 4 weeks, and then once a week or once every 2 weeks from week 9. Treatment is recommended for at least 6 months after symptoms improve. Cost: £163 for 28 mg (one device) Classification: Prescription only medicine (POM) subject to additional monitoring (▼). Controlled drug schedule 2.