描述难治抑郁症长期临床结果的替代指标:II。对治疗效果的敏感性。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Scott T Aaronson, Harold A Sackeim, Mei Jiang, Sarah Badejo, Teresa Greco, Mark T Bunker, Charles R Conway, Koen Demyttenaere, Allan H Young, R Hamish McAllister-Williams, A John Rush
{"title":"描述难治抑郁症长期临床结果的替代指标:II。对治疗效果的敏感性。","authors":"Scott T Aaronson, Harold A Sackeim, Mei Jiang, Sarah Badejo, Teresa Greco, Mark T Bunker, Charles R Conway, Koen Demyttenaere, Allan H Young, R Hamish McAllister-Williams, A John Rush","doi":"10.1177/00048674231209837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Characteristics of difficult-to-treat depression (DTD), including infrequent symptom remission and poor durability of benefit, compel reconsideration of the outcome metrics historically used to gauge the effectiveness of antidepressant interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Self-report and clinician assessments of depression symptom severity were obtained regularly over a 2-year period in a difficult-to-treat depression registry sample receiving treatment as usual (TAU), with or without vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). Alternative outcome metrics for characterizing symptom change were compared in effect size and discriminating power in distinguishing the vagus nerve stimulation + treatment as usual and treatment as usual treatment groups. We expected metrics based on remission status to produce weaker between-group separation than those based on the classifications of partial response or response and metrics that integrate information over time to produce greater separation than those based on single endpoint assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Metrics based on remission status had smaller effect size and poorer discrimination in separating the treatment groups than metrics based on partial response or response classifications. Metrics that integrated information over the 2-year observation period had stronger performance characteristics than those based on symptom scores at single endpoint assessment. For both the clinician-rated and self-report depression ratings, the metrics with the strongest performance characteristics were the median percentage change in symptom scores over the observation period and the proportion of the observation period in partial response or better.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In difficult-to-treat depression, integrative symptom severity-based and time-based measures are sensitive and informative outcomes for assessing between-group treatment effects, while metrics based on remission status are not.</p>","PeriodicalId":8589,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"250-259"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10903145/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alternative metrics for characterizing longer-term clinical outcomes in difficult-to-treat depression: II. Sensitivity to treatment effects.\",\"authors\":\"Scott T Aaronson, Harold A Sackeim, Mei Jiang, Sarah Badejo, Teresa Greco, Mark T Bunker, Charles R Conway, Koen Demyttenaere, Allan H Young, R Hamish McAllister-Williams, A John Rush\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00048674231209837\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Characteristics of difficult-to-treat depression (DTD), including infrequent symptom remission and poor durability of benefit, compel reconsideration of the outcome metrics historically used to gauge the effectiveness of antidepressant interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Self-report and clinician assessments of depression symptom severity were obtained regularly over a 2-year period in a difficult-to-treat depression registry sample receiving treatment as usual (TAU), with or without vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). Alternative outcome metrics for characterizing symptom change were compared in effect size and discriminating power in distinguishing the vagus nerve stimulation + treatment as usual and treatment as usual treatment groups. We expected metrics based on remission status to produce weaker between-group separation than those based on the classifications of partial response or response and metrics that integrate information over time to produce greater separation than those based on single endpoint assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Metrics based on remission status had smaller effect size and poorer discrimination in separating the treatment groups than metrics based on partial response or response classifications. Metrics that integrated information over the 2-year observation period had stronger performance characteristics than those based on symptom scores at single endpoint assessment. For both the clinician-rated and self-report depression ratings, the metrics with the strongest performance characteristics were the median percentage change in symptom scores over the observation period and the proportion of the observation period in partial response or better.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In difficult-to-treat depression, integrative symptom severity-based and time-based measures are sensitive and informative outcomes for assessing between-group treatment effects, while metrics based on remission status are not.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8589,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"250-259\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10903145/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674231209837\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674231209837","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:难治性抑郁症(DTD)的特点,包括症状缓解率低和获益持久性差,迫使人们重新考虑历史上用于衡量抗抑郁干预有效性的结果指标。方法:在2年的时间里,在接受常规治疗(TAU)、有无迷走神经刺激(VNS)的难治抑郁症登记样本中,定期获得抑郁症症状严重程度的自我报告和临床医生评估。表征症状变化的替代结果指标在区分迷走神经刺激的效果大小和辨别能力方面进行了比较 + 照常治疗组和照常治疗组。我们预计,与基于部分反应或反应分类的指标相比,基于缓解状态的指标会产生较弱的组间分离,与基于单终点评估的指标相比会随着时间的推移整合信息,产生更大的分离。结果:与基于部分反应或反应分类的指标相比,基于缓解状态的指标在分离治疗组方面的效果较小,歧视性较差。在2年观察期内整合信息的指标比基于单终点评估症状评分的指标具有更强的表现特征。对于临床医生评分和自我报告的抑郁症评分,表现特征最强的指标是观察期内症状评分变化的中位百分比,以及观察期部分缓解或更好的比例。结论:在难以治疗的抑郁症中,基于症状严重程度和时间的综合指标是评估组间治疗效果的敏感和信息性结果,而基于缓解状态的指标则不是。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Alternative metrics for characterizing longer-term clinical outcomes in difficult-to-treat depression: II. Sensitivity to treatment effects.

Objective: Characteristics of difficult-to-treat depression (DTD), including infrequent symptom remission and poor durability of benefit, compel reconsideration of the outcome metrics historically used to gauge the effectiveness of antidepressant interventions.

Methods: Self-report and clinician assessments of depression symptom severity were obtained regularly over a 2-year period in a difficult-to-treat depression registry sample receiving treatment as usual (TAU), with or without vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). Alternative outcome metrics for characterizing symptom change were compared in effect size and discriminating power in distinguishing the vagus nerve stimulation + treatment as usual and treatment as usual treatment groups. We expected metrics based on remission status to produce weaker between-group separation than those based on the classifications of partial response or response and metrics that integrate information over time to produce greater separation than those based on single endpoint assessment.

Results: Metrics based on remission status had smaller effect size and poorer discrimination in separating the treatment groups than metrics based on partial response or response classifications. Metrics that integrated information over the 2-year observation period had stronger performance characteristics than those based on symptom scores at single endpoint assessment. For both the clinician-rated and self-report depression ratings, the metrics with the strongest performance characteristics were the median percentage change in symptom scores over the observation period and the proportion of the observation period in partial response or better.

Conclusion: In difficult-to-treat depression, integrative symptom severity-based and time-based measures are sensitive and informative outcomes for assessing between-group treatment effects, while metrics based on remission status are not.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
149
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry is the official Journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP). The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry is a monthly journal publishing original articles which describe research or report opinions of interest to psychiatrists. These contributions may be presented as original research, reviews, perspectives, commentaries and letters to the editor. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry is the leading psychiatry journal of the Asia-Pacific region.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信