Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Demonstrating the efficacy of ADs

Posted by ed_uk on November 18, 2004, at 15:54:39

What do you think of this?? I found it on the internet. It describes some, but not all of the methodological problems with studies of ADs.............

It is generally assumed that antidepressants have been clearly established as more effective than placebo in double-blind controlled research. Morris and Beck (1974) conducted a comprehensive literature review that revealed that tricyclic antidepressants were superior to a placebo in 63 of 91 controlled studies conducted between 1958 and 1972. Although this review would appear to support the efficacy of antidepressants, there may be some problems that diminish the strength of the results. For example, studies with negative results are much less likely to be published (Greenberg & Fisher, 1989). Also, most controlled drug studies use an inert placebo that may, in effect, unblind the studies because the clinician raters can determine who is receiving the active medication by determining who is having side effects (Hughes & Krahn, 1985; Margraf et al., 1991). This could be a serious flaw because most drug studies rely primarily on potentially biased clinician-rated measures (e.g., the HRSD and the GAS) rather than on patient-rated measures (e.g., the BDI). It has been shown, in an extensive meta-analysis (Lambert, Hatch, Kingston, & Edwards, 1986), that patient-rated measures show a significantly smaller effect size than clinician-rated measures (i.e., patient raters tend to see less improvement than clinician raters). Another concern is that most antidepressant drug studies use a "washout" phase during which all prospective participants are placed on placebo (Greenberg & Fisher, 1989). Those prospective participants who show improvement during the washout phase are eliminated from the pool of participants. This routine procedure very likely creates a bias against the placebo condition in such drug studies before they even start by eliminating those individuals who may be "placebo responders." Thus, the actual placebo response rate may be seriously underestimated in most antidepressant studies.

Using the same study pool reviewed by Morris and Beck (1974), Thomson (1982) reviewed 75 placebo-controlled double-blind studies of tricyclic antidepressants conducted between 1958 and 1972 that met somewhat stricter methodological criteria. Only 7 of these studies used an active placebo, and only 1 of the studies using an active placebo showed the antidepressant to have a superior outcome to the placebo. ***Note by Ed- an active placebo is a drug which is believed to be ineffective for the treatment of the condition in question (depression) but which mimics the side effects on the active drug ie. the antidepressant.***

Despite the excitement about the newer antidepressants such as fluoxetine, a recent meta-analysis of nine controlled fluoxetine outcome studies showed only a modest mean effect size of 0.39 in comparison with controls on patient-rated measures (Greenberg, Bornstein, Zborowski, Fisher, & Greenberg, 1994). This effect size is comparable but not larger than that obtained in previous meta-analyses of tricyclic antidepressants. Interestingly, both clinician and patient outcome ratings correlated significantly with the percentage of patients experiencing side effects, suggesting that side effects may unblind these studies and bias the outcome measures.

Fisher and Greenberg (1993) conducted a worldwide literature search for psychotropic drug studies that evaluated whether or not the double blind had been penetrated. Of the 26 reports they were able to locate, 23 (88%) indicated that both patients and physicians were able to differentiate who was receiving the drug or placebo at rates significantly better than chance. Another recent study showed that clinical evaluators' subjective ratings of treatment outcome were significantly different depending on whether the clinical evaluator had correctly guessed the patients' condition (Carroll, Rounsaville, & Nich, 1994). This is likely to be a problem for both psychotherapy and drug treatment conditions but is likely to especially affect drug–placebo comparisons as a result of the presence or absence of drug side effects.

A recent meta-analysis (Greenberg, Bornstein, Greenberg, & Fisher, 1992b) reviewed 22 controlled studies (N = 2,230) that compared a placebo (usually inert) with an "old" antidepressant and a "new" antidepressant. Even if the clinician rater were unblinded by side effects, he or she would have difficulty distinguishing which of the active medications the patient was receiving, in effect making these studies somewhat "blinder." Overall, the old antidepressants and the new antidepressants showed a small (average effect sizes of 0.25 and 0.31, respectively) advantage over placebo on clinician-rated measures. Considering that most studies with nonsignificant findings are not published, the authors speculated that this advantage may, in fact, have been negligible. Interestingly, when patient-rated outcome measures were used, the old antidepressants were not significantly more effective than the placebo and showed an effect size of only 0.06. The data suggested that the new antidepressants did not fare much better. These effect sizes were far smaller than the effect sizes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.79, that had emerged from the earlier meta-analyses of tricyclic antidepressants (Morris & Beck, 1974; Thomson, 1982). These data suggest that relying on clinician ratings alone could lead to significant biases whenever the blind is penetrated.


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:ed_uk thread:417568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20041118/msgs/417568.html