Assessing the meaningful change threshold of Quality of Life in Depression Scale using data from two phase 3 studies of esketamine nasal spray

Heather Rozjabek, Nan Li, Holger Hartmann, Dong Jing Fu, Carla Canuso, Carol Jamieson, Heather Rozjabek, Nan Li, Holger Hartmann, Dong Jing Fu, Carla Canuso, Carol Jamieson

Abstract

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) directly impacts patients' lives including symptoms, functioning and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Patient-reported outcomes can capture these impacts, however interpretation of clinical meaningfulness of these measurements are often not readily available. Meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) can be derived for clinical outcome assessments to quantify the change in symptoms that is meaningful to the patient following pharmacologic treatment or other interventions. The objective of this analysis was to determine the within-patient MCT of the self-reported Quality-of-Life in Depression Scale (QLDS) among patients with MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI) using an anchor-based approach.

Methods: Data from 2 randomized phase-3 trials of esketamine nasal spray (ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II) were analyzed. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was the primary anchor with three different severity criteria. Other anchor variables utilized were Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Suicidality-revised version, Clinical Global Impression of Imminent Suicide Risk, and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale [EQ-VAS]. Spearman correlation coefficients between the change in QLDS and anchor variables were calculated. The mean change in QLDS score at Day 25 from baseline was calculated based on the categorical change in the anchor. Coefficient yield from linear regression of the mean changes in EQ-VAS and QLDS, and distribution-based approach with ½ SD of change in QLDS were considered.

Results: In ASPIRE I, mean (SD) improvement in QLDS score among patients with one category improvement in MADRS from baseline to Day 25 was - 8.22 (8.87), - 8.30 (9.01), and - 8.20 (8.92) using severity criteria #1, #2, and #3, respectively. Patients who achieved a 7-point improvement (MCT) in EQ-VAS yielded a mean - 9.69-point improvement in QLDS at Day 25. The ½ SD of change in QLDS was 5.63. Similar results were obtained for ASPIRE II. The MCTs identified using multiple anchors across both trials ranged from - 11.4 to - 6.7 and had an overall mean of - 7.90 (ASPIRE I) and - 7.92 (ASPIRE II). Thus, an 8-point change was recommended as the MCT for QLDS.

Conclusion: The recommended MCT will help quantify within-person changes in HRQoL using patient-reported QLDS and determine meaningful treatment benefit in an MDD patient population with acute suicidal ideation or behavior.

Trial registration: Name of the registry: ClinicalTrials.gov.

Trial registration number: ASPIRE I (NCT03039192), ASPIRE II (NCT03097133). Date of registration: February 01, 2017; March 31, 2017. URL of trial registry record: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03039192 ; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03097133 .

Keywords: Anchor-based approach; Major depressive disorder; Meaningful change threshold; Quality of Life in Depression.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors are employees of Janssen and may own stock or stock options.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
ASPIRE I–mean change in QLDS score from baseline to Day 25 using MADRS as an anchor. Values are represented as mean ± 95% CI. MADRS was categorized as: severity criteria #1—no depression (score 0–12), slight depression (score 13–21), moderate depression (score 22–28), and severe depression (score > 28–60); severity criteria #2—no depression (score 0–6), mild depression (score 7–19), moderate depression (score 20–34), and severe depression (score > 34–60); and severity criteria #3—no depression (score 0–12), mild depression (score 13–17), moderate depression (score 18–34), and severe depression (score > 34–60). CAT Category, CI Confidence Interval, IMP Improvement, MADRS Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, QLDS Quality of Life in Depression Scale
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ASPIRE II–mean change in QLDS score from baseline to Day 25 using MADRS as an anchor. Values are represented as mean ± 95% CI. MADRS was categorized as: severity criteria #1—no depression (score 0–12), slight depression (score 13–21), moderate depression (score 22–28), and severe depression (score > 28–60); severity criteria #2—no depression (score 0–6), mild depression (score 7–19), moderate depression (score 20–34), and severe depression (score > 34–60); and severity criteria #3—no depression (score 0–12), mild depression (score 13–17), moderate depression (score 18–34), and severe depression (score > 34–60). CAT Category, CI Confidence Interval, IMP Improvement, MADRS Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, QLDS Quality of Life in Depression Scale
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Meaningful change thresholds of QLDS using anchor- and distribution-based approach. Values represent MCT for various categories or points of improvement in QLDS score from Baseline to Day 25. For all MADRS severity criteria—one-category improvement and for EQ-VAS—7-point improvement. EQ-VAS EuroQol Visual Analog Scale, MADRS Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, MCT meaningful change threshold; QLDS Quality of Life in Depression Scale, SD Standard Deviation
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Cumulative distribution function of change from baseline to Day 25 in QLDS score stratified by MADRS change category at Day 25. A, B: Severity Criteria #1; C, D: Severity criteria #2; E, F: Severity Criteria #3 (see Table 1 for details). BL Baseline, IMP Improvement, MADRS Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, QLDS Quality of Life in Depression Scale

References

    1. GBD Results Tool (2017) Retrieved 05 Oct 2020, from
    1. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP19–5068, NSDUH Series H-54). (2019). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD
    1. Cui R. Editorial: a systematic review of depression. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2015;13(4):480. doi: 10.2174/1570159x1304150831123535.
    1. IsHak WW, Mirocha J, James D, Tobia G, Vilhauer J, Fakhry H, Pi S, Hanson E, Nashawati R, Peselow ED, Cohen RM. Quality of life in major depressive disorder before/after multiple steps of treatment and one-year follow-up. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015;131(1):51–60. doi: 10.1111/acps.12301.
    1. Beck A, Crain AL, Solberg LI, Unutzer J, Glasgow RE, Maciosek MV, Whitebird R. Severity of depression and magnitude of productivity loss. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(4):305–311. doi: 10.1370/afm.1260.
    1. Hasin DS, Sarvet AL, Meyers JL, Saha TD, Ruan WJ, Stohl M, Grant BF. Epidemiology of adult DSM-5 major depressive disorder and its specifiers in the United States. JAMA Psychiat. 2018;75(4):336–346. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4602.
    1. Fife D, Reps J, Cepeda MS, Stang P, Blacketer M, Singh J. Treatment resistant depression incidence estimates from studies of health insurance databases depend strongly on the details of the operating definition. Heliyon. 2018;4(7):e00707. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00707.
    1. Cuijpers P. The patient perspective in research on major depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:89. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-89.
    1. Crossnohere NL, Brundage M, Calvert MJ, King M, Reeve BB, Thorner E, Wu AW, Snyder C. International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(1):21–40. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02625-z.
    1. Kamenov K, Cabello M, Coenen M, Ayuso-Mateos JL. How much do we know about the functional effectiveness of interventions for depression? A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2015;188:89–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.08.035.
    1. Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB, Posternak MA, Friedman M, Attiullah N, Boerescu D. How should remission from depression be defined? The depressed patient's perspective. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):148–150. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.148.
    1. Lam RW, Parikh SV, Michalak EE, Dewa CS, Kennedy SH. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) consensus recommendations for functional outcomes in major depressive disorder. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2015;27(2):142–149.
    1. FDA Guidance for industry on patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims; availability. Fed Reg. 2009;74(235):65132–65133.
    1. Patient-focused drug development guidance: methods to identify what is important to patients and select, develop or modify fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments (2018)
    1. Public workshop on patient-focused drug development: guidance 4—incorporating clinical outcome assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision making (2019)
    1. Hunt SM, McKenna SP. The QLDS: a scale for the measurement of quality of life in depression. Health Policy. 1992;22(3):307–319. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(92)90004-u.
    1. McKenna SP, Hunt SM. A new measure of quality of life in depression: testing the reliability and construct validity of the QLDS. Health Policy. 1992;22(3):321–330. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(92)90005-v.
    1. McKenna SP, Doward LC, Kohlmann T, Mercier C, Niero M, Paes M, Patrick D, Ramirez N, Thorsen H, Whalley D. International development of the Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS) J Affect Disord. 2001;63(1–3):189–199. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(00)00184-1.
    1. Dunner DL, Kwong WJ, Houser TL, Richard NE, Donahue RM, Khan ZM. Improved health-related quality of life and reduced productivity loss after treatment with bupropion sustained release: a study in patients with major depression. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;3(1):10–16. doi: 10.4088/pcc.v03n0103.
    1. Trick L, Stanley N, Rigney U, Hindmarch I. A double-blind, randomized, 26-week study comparing the cognitive and psychomotor effects and efficacy of 75 mg (37.5 mg b.i.d.) venlafaxine and 75 mg (25 mg mane, 50 mg nocte) dothiepin in elderly patients with moderate major depression being treated in general practice. J Psychopharmacol. 2004;18(2):205–214. doi: 10.1177/0269881104042622.
    1. Burt VK, Wohlreich MM, Mallinckrodt CH, Detke MJ, Watkin JG, Stewart DE. Duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder in women ages 40 to 55 years. Psychosomatics. 2005;46(4):345–354. doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.46.4.345.
    1. Zajecka J, Schatzberg A, Stahl S, Shah A, Caputo A, Post A. Efficacy and safety of agomelatine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;30(2):135–144. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181d420a7.
    1. Callaghan P, Khalil E, Morres I, Carter T. Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of preferred intensity exercise in women living with depression. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:465. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-465.
    1. Kornstein SG, Wohlreich MM, Mallinckrodt CH, Watkin JG, Stewart DE. Duloxetine efficacy for major depressive disorder in male vs. female patients: data from 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(5):761–770. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v67n0510.
    1. Shi L, Namjoshi MA, Swindle R, Yu X, Risser R, Baker RW, Tohen M. Effects of olanzapine alone and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination on health-related quality of life in patients with bipolar depression: secondary analyses of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Clin Ther. 2004;26(1):125–134. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(04)90013-6.
    1. Guelfi JD, Ansseau M, Timmerman L, Korsgaard S, Mirtazapine-Venlafaxine Study, G Mirtazapine versus venlafaxine in hospitalized severely depressed patients with melancholic features. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001;21(4):425–431. doi: 10.1097/00004714-200108000-00010.
    1. Gorwood P, Benichou J, Moore N, Wattez M, Secouard MC, Desobry X, Picarel-Blanchot F, de Bodinat C. Agomelatine in standard medical practice in depressed patients: results of a 1-year multicentre observational study in France. Clin Drug Investig. 2020;40(11):1009–1020. doi: 10.1007/s40261-020-00957-9.
    1. Capelleri JC, Coon C, Wyrwich K (2016) PRO consortium webinar: methods for determining clinically meaningful change. Retrieved 7 Oct 2020, from
    1. Hudgens S, Symonds T, McLeod L, Coon C. Moving the science forward: psychometric considerations and study designs for understanding meaningful change and conducting mixed methods research, 2016 ISPOR 19th annual european congress. Vienna, Austria: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2016.
    1. Coon CD, Cook KF. Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(1):33–40. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1616-3.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, Lenderking WR, Acaster S, Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life, R Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(3):475–483. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x.
    1. Fu DJ, Ionescu DF, Li X, Lane R, Lim P, Sanacora G, Hough D, Manji H, Drevets WC, Canuso CM. Esketamine nasal spray for rapid reduction of major depressive disorder symptoms in patients who have active suicidal ideation with intent: double-blind, randomized study (ASPIRE I) J Clin Psychiatry; 2020.
    1. Ionescu DF, Fu DJ, Qiu X, Lane R, Lim P, Kasper S, Hough D, Drevets WC, Manji H, Canuso CM. Esketamine nasal spray for rapid reduction of depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder who have active suicide ideation with intent: results of a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study (ASPIRE II) Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021;24(1):22–31. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaa068.
    1. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM–5) 5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
    1. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, Hergueta T, Baker R, Dunbar GC. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(Suppl 20):22–33.
    1. Montgomery SA, Åsberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134(4):382–389. doi: 10.1192/bjp.134.4.382.
    1. Fu D-J, Canuso C, Ionescu DF, Li X, Lane R, Lim P, Hough D, Drevets W, Manji H (2019) ASPIRE-1: a phase 3 randomized study of esketamine nasal spray for rapid reduction of major depressive disorder symptoms in adult patients at imminent risk for suicide, 2019 IASR/AFSP international summit on suicide research. Miami, FL
    1. Ionescu DF, Canuso CM, Qiu X, Lane R, Lim P, Hough D, Drevets W, Manji H, Fu D-J (2019) ASPIRE-2: a phase 3 randomized study of esketamine nasal spray for rapid reduction of major depressive disorder symptoms in adult patients at imminent risk for suicide, 2019 IASR/AFSP international summit on suicide research. Miami, FL
    1. Montgomery SA. Clinically relevant effect sizes in depression. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 1994;4(3):283–284. doi: 10.1016/0924-977X(94)90093-0.
    1. Muller MJ, Szegedi A, Wetzel H, Benkert O. Moderate and severe depression. Gradations for the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale. J Affect Disord. 2000;60(2):137–140. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(99)00162-7.
    1. Muller-Thomsen T, Arlt S, Mann U, Mass R, Ganzer S. Detecting depression in Alzheimer's disease: evaluation of four different scales. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;20(2):271–276. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2004.03.010.
    1. Weyer G. International Scales for Psychiatry. 5. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag; 2005.
    1. Alphs L, Fu DJ, Williamson D, Turkoz I, Jamieson C, Revicki D, Canuso CM. Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT): evaluation of intra- and inter-rater reliability, validity, and mapping to Columbia classification algorithm of suicide assessment. Psychiatry Res. 2020;294:113495. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113495.
    1. Busner J, Targum SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 2007;4(7):28–37.
    1. Wyrwich K, Reeve B, Coon CD (2017) What’s the score? Moving from items to scores—methods, considerations, and case examples, eighth annual patient-reported outcome consortium workshop, Bethesda, MD
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.
    1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–546. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Jones IA, Togashi R, Heckmann N, Vangsness CT., Jr Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported shoulder outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(7):1484–1492. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.12.033.
    1. Kamenov K, Cabello M, Nieto M, Bernard R, Kohls E, Rummel-Kluge C, Ayuso-Mateos JL. Research recommendations for improving measurement of treatment effectiveness in depression. Front Psychol. 2017;8:356. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00356.
    1. Burback D, Molnar FJ, St John P, Man-Son-Hing M. Key methodological features of randomized controlled trials of Alzheimer's disease therapy. Minimal clinically important difference, sample size and trial duration. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1999;10(6):534–540. doi: 10.1159/000017201.
    1. Meyer RJ. U.S. regulatory perspective on the minimal clinically important difference in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. COPD. 2005;2(1):47–49. doi: 10.1081/copd-200050660.
    1. Duru G, Fantino B. The clinical relevance of changes in the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale using the minimum clinically important difference approach. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(5):1329–1335. doi: 10.1185/030079908X291958.
    1. Hudgens S, Floden L, Blacowicz M, Jamieson C, Popova V, Fedgchin M, Drevets W, Cooper K, Lane R, Singh J. 175 Determining meaningful change in depression symptoms assessed with PHQ-9 and SDS in treatment-resistant depression trials of esketamine nasal spray. CNS Spectr. 2020;25(2):311–312. doi: 10.1017/S1092852920000917.
    1. Masson SC, Tejani AM. Minimum clinically important differences identified for commonly used depression rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):805–807. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.010.
    1. Button KS, Kounali D, Thomas L, Wiles NJ, Peters TJ, Welton NJ, Ades AE, Lewis G. Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory-II according to the patient's perspective. Psychol Med. 2015;45(15):3269–3279. doi: 10.1017/S0033291715001270.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する