0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is the efficacy of antidepressants in panic disorder mediated by adverse events? A mediational analysis

      research-article
      1 , * , 2 , 2
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          It has been hypothesised that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may induce patients to conclude that they have been randomized to the active arm of the trial, leading to the breaking of blind. This may enhance the expectancies for improvement and the therapeutic response. The main objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the efficacy of antidepressants in panic disorder is mediated by the perception of adverse events. The present analysis is based on a systematic review of published and unpublished randomised trials comparing antidepressants with placebo for panic disorder. The Baron and Kenny approach was applied to investigate the mediational role of adverse events in the relationship between antidepressants treatment and efficacy. Fourteen placebo-controlled antidepressants trials were included in the analysis. We found that: (a) antidepressants treatment was significantly associated with better treatment response (ß = 0.127, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.21, p = 0.003); (b) antidepressants treatment was not associated with adverse events (ß = 0.094, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.24, p = 0.221); (c) adverse events were negatively associated with treatment response (ß = 0.035, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.05, p = 0.022). Finally, after adjustment for adverse events, the relationship between antidepressants treatment and treatment response remained statistically significant (ß = 0.122, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23, p = 0.039). These findings do not support the hypothesis that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may lead to the breaking of blind and to an artificial inflation of the efficacy measures. Based on these results, we argue that the moderate therapeutic effect of antidepressants in individuals with panic disorder is not an artefact, therefore reflecting a genuine effect that doctors can expect to replicate under real-world conditions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Does the probability of receiving placebo influence clinical trial outcome? A meta-regression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials in MDD.

          Substantial and highly variable placebo response rates represent a major obstacle to antidepressant development in major depressive disorder (MDD). However, whether the likelihood of receiving active treatment or placebo, a proxy of the degree of expectation of improvement, may itself influence clinical trial outcome is unclear. The goal of this work was to examine whether the probability of receiving placebo influences clinical trial outcome antidepressant MDD trials. Medline/Pubmed publication databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for adults with MDD. 146 manuscripts involving 182 clinical trials were pooled (n = 36,385). Pooled response rates for drug and placebo were 53.8% and 37.3%. A meta-regression (random-effects) established that the probability of receiving placebo, year of publication, and baseline severity were independent predictors of the risk ratio of responding to antidepressants versus placebo. Specifically, a greater probability of receiving placebo, greater baseline severity and an earlier year of publication predicted greater antidepressant-placebo "efficacy separation". Fixed versus flexible dose design, trial duration and population age did not influence clinical trial outcome.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A double-blind study of the efficacy of venlafaxine extended-release, paroxetine, and placebo in the treatment of panic disorder.

            To date, no large-scale, controlled trial comparing a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with placebo for the treatment of panic disorder has been reported. This double-blind study compares the efficacy of venlafaxine extended-release (ER) and paroxetine with placebo. A total of 664 nondepressed adult outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for panic disorder (with or without agoraphobia) were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with placebo or fixed-dose venlafaxine ER (75 mg/day or 150 mg/day), or paroxetine 40 mg/day. The primary measure was the percentage of patients free from full-symptom panic attacks, assessed with the Panic and Anticipatory Anxiety Scale (PAAS). Secondary measures included the Panic Disorder Severity Scale, Clinical Global Impressions--Severity (CGI-S) and--Improvement (CGI-I) scales; response (CGI-I rating of very much improved or much improved), remission (CGI-S rating of not at all ill or borderline ill and no PAAS full-symptom panic attacks); and measures of depression, anxiety, phobic fear and avoidance, anticipatory anxiety, functioning, and quality of life. Intent-to-treat, last observation carried forward analysis showed that mean improvement on most measures was greater with venlafaxine ER or paroxetine than with placebo. No significant differences were observed between active treatment groups. Panic-free rates at end point with active treatment ranged from 54% to 61%, compared with 35% for placebo. Approximately 75% of patients given active treatment were responders, and nearly 45% achieved remission. The placebo response rate was slightly above 55%, with remission near 25%. Adverse events were mild or moderate and similar between active treatment groups. Venlafaxine ER and paroxetine were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of panic disorder.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The bootstrap and Markov-chain Monte Carlo.

              This note concerns the use of parametric bootstrap sampling to carry out Bayesian inference calculations. This is only possible in a subset of those problems amenable to Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis, but when feasible the bootstrap approach offers both computational and theoretical advantages. The discussion here is in terms of a simple example, with no attempt at a general analysis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                2 June 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 6
                : e0178617
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
                [2 ]WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
                Carleton University, CANADA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                • Conceptualization: IB AB CB.

                • Data curation: IB AB CB.

                • Formal analysis: CB.

                • Methodology: IB CB.

                • Project administration: IB.

                • Visualization: IB CB.

                • Writing – original draft: IB.

                • Writing – review & editing: IB AB CB.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5661-5149
                Article
                PONE-D-16-50630
                10.1371/journal.pone.0178617
                5456299
                28575031
                26804524-1e41-4d97-a0e5-03d4283285d5
                © 2017 Bighelli et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 22 December 2016
                : 16 May 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: The publication fee of this work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in the framework of the Open Access Publishing Program (https://www.ub.tum.de/publikationsfonds).
                Award Recipient :
                The publication fee of this work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in the framework of the Open Access Publishing Program ( https://www.ub.tum.de/publikationsfonds) to IB. DFG and TUM had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Antidepressants
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Clinical Research Design
                Adverse Events
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Neuropsychiatric Disorders
                Anxiety Disorders
                Panic Disorder
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Neuroses
                Anxiety Disorders
                Panic Disorder
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Geriatrics
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Elderly
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Mood Disorders
                Depression
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article