Prognostic subgroups for citalopram response in the STAR*D trial

Ewgeni Jakubovski, Michael H Bloch, Ewgeni Jakubovski, Michael H Bloch

Abstract

Objective: Few data exist to help clinicians predict likelihood of treatment response in individual patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Our aim was to identify subgroups of MDD patients with differential treatment outcomes based on presenting clinical characteristics. We also sought to quantify the likelihood of treatment success based on the degree of improvement and side effects after 2 and 4 weeks of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) pharmacotherapy.

Method: We analyzed data from the first treatment phase of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial, in which subjects with a DSM-IV diagnosis of MDD were treated for 8-14 weeks with open-label citalopram. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine homogenous subgroups with different rates of response and remission in depressive symptoms. Included predictor variables were initial clinical characteristics, initial improvement, and side effects after 2 and 4 weeks of SSRI treatment. The primary outcome measures were treatment response (defined as a greater than 50% reduction in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS-17] score from baseline) and remission (defined as an HDRS-17 score ≤ 17).

Results: Baseline clinical characteristics were able to identify subgroups from a low likelihood of response of 18% (income < $10,000, comorbid generalized anxiety disorder, < 16 years of education; P < .01) to a high likelihood of response of 68% (income ≥ $40,000, no comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder; P < .01). Among baseline clinical characteristics, employment status (N = 2,477; χ²₁ = 78.1; P < .001) and income level (N = 2,512; χ²₁ = 77.7; P < .001) were the most informative in predicting treatment outcome. For the models at weeks 2 and 4, treatment success was best predicted by early symptom improvement.

Conclusions: Socioeconomic data such as low income, education, and unemployment were most discriminative in predicting a poor response to citalopram, even with disparities in access to care accounted for. This finding implies that socioeconomic factors may be more useful predictors of medication response than traditional psychiatric diagnoses or past treatment history.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00021528.

Conflict of interest statement

Potential conflicts of interest: None reported.

© Copyright 2014 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ROC Analysis: Empirically Derived Subgroups Predicting Treatment Outcome at Week 12 Using Baseline Clinical Characteristicsa aChart color: dark gray: P <.001; light gray: P <.01; white: P <.05. Abbreviations: GAD = generalized anxiety disorder, HDRS = Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, MDD = major depressive disorder, ROC = receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC Analysis: Empirically Derived Subgroups Predicting Treatment Outcome at Week 12 Using Clinical Characteristics Known After 2 Weeks of Citalopram Treatmenta aChart color: dark gray: P <.001; light gray: P <.01; white: P <.05. Abbreviations: HDRS = Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, MDD = major depressive disorder, QIDS = Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, ROC = receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC Analysis: Empirically Derived Subgroups Predicting Treatment Outcome at Week 12 Using Clinical Characteristics Known After 4 Weeks of Citalopram Treatmenta aChart color: dark gray: P <.001; light gray: P <.01; White P <.05. Abbreviations: HDRS = Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, MDD = major depressive disorder, QIDS = Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, ROC = receiver operating characteristic.

References

    1. Cuijpers P, van Straten A, Schuurmans J, et al. Psychotherapy for chronic major depression and dysthymia: a meta analysis. [Accessed April 7, 2014]; . Updated 2009.
    1. Cuijpers P, van Straten A, van Oppen P, et al. Are psychological and pharmacologic interventions equally effective in the treatment of adult depressive disorders? a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(11):1675–1685. quiz 1839–1841.
    1. Marcus SC, Olfson M. National trends in the treatment for depression from 1998 to 2007. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(12):1265–1273.
    1. Taylor MJ, Freemantle N, Geddes JR, et al. Early onset of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant action: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(11):1217–1223.
    1. Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, et al. STAR*D Study Team. Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):28–40.
    1. Mulsant BH, Houck PR, Gildengers AG, et al. What is the optimal duration of a short-term antidepressant trial when treating geriatric depression? J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2006;26(2):113–120.
    1. Andreescu C, Lenze EJ, Dew MA, et al. Effect of comorbid anxiety on treatment response and relapse risk in late-life depression: controlled study. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190(4):344–349.
    1. WHO International Consortium in Psychiatric Epidemiology. Cross-national comparisons of the prevalences and correlates of mental disorders. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(4):413–426.
    1. Weich S, Lewis G. Poverty, unemployment, and common mental disorders: population based cohort study. BMJ. 1998;317(7151):115–119.
    1. Lorant V, Deliège D, Eaton W, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in depression: a meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(2):98–112.
    1. Katz SJ, Kessler RC, Frank RG, et al. Mental health care use, morbidity, and socioeconomic status in the United States and Ontario. Inquiry. 1997;34(1):38–49.
    1. Rush AJ, Fava M, Wisniewski SR, et al. STAR*D Investigators Group. Sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D): rationale and design. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(1):119–142.
    1. Fava M, Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, et al. Background and rationale for the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D) study. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2003;26(2):457–494. x.
    1. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neural Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56–62.
    1. Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1967;6(4):278–296.
    1. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. A self-report scale to help make psychiatric diagnoses: the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(8):787–794.
    1. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire: development, reliability and validity. Compr Psychiatry. 2001;42(3):175–189.
    1. Rush AJ, Zimmerman M, Wisniewski SR, et al. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in depressed outpatients: demographic and clinical features. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(1):43–55.
    1. Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, Ibrahim HM, et al. The 16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), clinician rating (QIDS-C), and self-report (QIDS-SR): a psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54(5):573–583.
    1. Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Ibrahim HM, et al. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (IDS-C) and Self-Report (IDS-SR), and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (QIDS-C) and Self-Report (QIDS-SR) in public sector patients with mood disorders: a psychometric evaluation. Psychol Med. 2004;34(1):73–82.
    1. Rush AJ, Bernstein IH, Trivedi MH, et al. An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the Hamilton rating scale for depression: a sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59(6):493–501.
    1. Kraemer HC. Evaluating Medical Tests: Objective and Quantitative Guidelines. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1992. p. 296.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. New York, NY: Routledge Academic: 1988.
    1. Cook EF, Goldman L. Empiric comparison of multivariate analytic techniques: advantages and disadvantages of recursive partitioning analysis. J Chronic Dis. 1984;37(9–10):721–731.
    1. Ronalds C, Creed F, Stone K, et al. Outcome of anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care. Br J Psychiatry. 1997;171(5):427–433.
    1. Viinamäki H, Haatainen K, Honkalampi K, et al. Which factors are important predictors of non-recovery from major depression? a 2-year prospective observational study. Nord J Psychiatry. 2006;60(5):410–416.
    1. Fava M, Rush AJ, Alpert JE, et al. Difference in treatment outcome in outpatients with anxious versus nonanxious depression: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(3):342–351.
    1. Cohen A, Gilman SE, Houck PR, et al. Socioeconomic status and anxiety as predictors of antidepressant treatment response and suicidal ideation in older adults. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2009;44(4):272–277.
    1. Gianaros PJ, Marsland AL, Sheu LK, et al. Inflammatory pathways link socioeconomic inequalities to white matter architecture. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23(9):2058–2071.
    1. Aro S, Aro H, Keskimäki I. Socio-economic mobility among patients with schizophrenia or major affective disorder: a 17-year retrospective follow-up. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;166(6):759–767.
    1. van der Lem R, van der Wee NJA, van Veen T, et al. Efficacy versus effectiveness: a direct comparison of the outcome of treatment for mild to moderate depression in randomized controlled trials and daily practice. Psychother Psychosom. 2012;81(4):226–234.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa