Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025
Large responses to antidepressants or methodological artifacts? A secondary analysis of STAR∗D, a single-arm, open-label, nonindustry antidepressant trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xu Colin, Naudet Florian, Kim Thomas T, Hengartner Michael P, Horowitz Mark A, Kirsch Irving, Moncrieff Joanna, Pigott Ed, Plöderl Martin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To replicate Stone et al's (2022) finding that the distribution of response in clinical antidepressant trials is trimodal with large, medium-effect, and small subgroups.
METHODS: To apply finite mixture modeling to pre-post Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) differences (n = 2184) of STAR∗D study's level 1, a single-arm, open-label study. For a successful replication, the best fitting model had to be trimodal, with comparable components as in Stone et al. Secondary/sensitivity analyses repeated the analysis for different baseline levels of depression severity, imputed values, and patient-reported depression symptoms.
RESULTS: The best fitting models were either bimodal or trimodal but the trimodal solution did not meet criteria for replication. The bimodal model had 1 component with HDRS mean change of M = -13.0, SD = 6.7 and included 65.3% of patients, and another component with M = -1.8, SD = 5.1, 34.7%, respectively. For the trimodal model, the component with the largest change (M = -14.3, SD = 6.4) applied to 52% of patients, which differed substantially from the large effect component in Stone et al (M = -18.8, SD = 5.1), which applied to 7.2%. Secondary/sensitivity analyses arrived at similar conclusions, and for patient-reported depression symptoms the best fitting models were unimodal or bimodal.
CONCLUSION: This analysis failed to identify the trimodal distribution of response reported in Stone et al. In addition to being difficult to operationalize for regulatory purposes, results from mixture modeling are not sufficiently reliable to replace the more robust approach of comparing mean differences in depression rating scale scores between treatment arms.
METHODS: To apply finite mixture modeling to pre-post Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) differences (n = 2184) of STAR∗D study's level 1, a single-arm, open-label study. For a successful replication, the best fitting model had to be trimodal, with comparable components as in Stone et al. Secondary/sensitivity analyses repeated the analysis for different baseline levels of depression severity, imputed values, and patient-reported depression symptoms.
RESULTS: The best fitting models were either bimodal or trimodal but the trimodal solution did not meet criteria for replication. The bimodal model had 1 component with HDRS mean change of M = -13.0, SD = 6.7 and included 65.3% of patients, and another component with M = -1.8, SD = 5.1, 34.7%, respectively. For the trimodal model, the component with the largest change (M = -14.3, SD = 6.4) applied to 52% of patients, which differed substantially from the large effect component in Stone et al (M = -18.8, SD = 5.1), which applied to 7.2%. Secondary/sensitivity analyses arrived at similar conclusions, and for patient-reported depression symptoms the best fitting models were unimodal or bimodal.
CONCLUSION: This analysis failed to identify the trimodal distribution of response reported in Stone et al. In addition to being difficult to operationalize for regulatory purposes, results from mixture modeling are not sufficiently reliable to replace the more robust approach of comparing mean differences in depression rating scale scores between treatment arms.