Outcomes on the pharmacopsychometric triangle in bupropion‐SR vs. buspirone augmentation of citalopram in the STAR*D trial

Bech, Per; Fava, Maurizio; Trivedi, Madhukar H.; Wisniewski, Stephen R.; Rush, A. John

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01791.x

Cited by 40 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Out of the 12 trials included in online supplementary Table 3, 3 studies report no difference between the HAM-D 6 and HAM-D 17 , but all are statistically significant in showing that active treatment is superior to placebo. In Chouinard et al [27], Feiger et al [42], Bech et al [43], and Sondergaard et al [44], only the HAM-D 6 reached the level of statistical significance, whereas in the study by Ratti et al [45] the HAM-D 17 but not HAM-D 6 significantly discriminated between placebo and casopitant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of the Clinimetric Properties of the 6-Item Version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D<sub>6</sub>)

Timmerby

Andersen

Søndergaard

et al. 2017

Psychother Psychosom

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In a study aimed at identifying the items carrying information regarding the global severity of depression, the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D₆) was derived from the original 17-item version of the scale (HAM-D₁₇). Since then, the HAM-D₆ has been used in a wide range of clinical studies. We now provide a systematic review of the clinimetric properties of HAM-D₆ in comparison with those of HAM-D₁₇ and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the literature in PubMed, PsycInfo, and EMBASE databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Studies reporting data on the clinimetric validity of the HAM-D₆ and either the HAM-D₁₇ or MADRS in non-psychotic unipolar or bipolar depression were included in the synthesis. Results: The search identified 681 unique records, of which 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. According to the published literature, HAM-D₆ has proven to be superior to both HAM-D₁₇ and MADRS in terms of scalability (each item contains unique information regarding syndrome severity), transferability (scalability is constant over time and irrespective of sex, age, and depressive subtypes), and responsiveness (sensitivity to change in severity during treatment). Conclusions: According to the published literature, the clinimetric properties of HAM-D₆ are superior to those of both the HAM-D₁₇ and MADRS. Since the validity of HAM-D₆ has been demonstrated in both research and clinical practice, using the scale more consistently would facilitate translation of results from one setting to the other.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Furthermore, in studies where symptom reduction was used as an outcome measure, the HAM-D 6 detected statistically significant differences between treatment groups more often than HAM-D 17 [27,42,43] (online suppl. Table 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Clinimetric Properties of the 6-Item Version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D<sub>6</sub>)

Timmerby

Andersen

Søndergaard

et al. 2017

Psychother Psychosom

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, none of these three problematic items are included in the HDRS 6 . As the wanted effect (antidepressant effect in this context) and unwanted effects (side effects) are ideally evaluated independently in clinical studies (21)(22)(23), the HDRS 6 is an ideal measure of the wanted effects of antidepressant agents (21,24).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do not blame the SSRIs: blame the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Østergaard

2017

Acta Neuropsychiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Using a modified intent-to-treat sample, bupropion-SR was associated with fewer side effects, greater reduction in depressive symptoms, and better QOL (trend level). 12 One could even make the argument for a descriptive look at the completers who benefited enough to stay on the drug to determine their side effect burden, symptom status, and QOL, along with their course over the following 3-6 months! All of this information would be clinically informative, though not definitive given the attrition rates and potential biases.…”

Section: Ask More Clinically Informative Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrowing the Gaps Between What We Know and What We Do in Psychiatry

Rush¹

2015

J. Clin. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report examines the nature, importance, and reasons for the gaps between what we know from research, what we need to know, and what we do in the clinic: research-practice gaps. It also makes suggestions for how to narrow these gaps. Patients, families, clinicians, care system managers, regulators, health care policy makers, and payers are all stakeholders in patient-oriented research. Different types of patient-oriented research address their diverse interests. For example, regulators and industry sponsors focus largely on efficacy and safety issues for new medications and devices via phase 1-3 studies. Clinicians and patients want to know how, when, for whom, and under what conditions both new and current treatments are best provided-questions not addressed by trials conducted for regulatory approval. Managers and policy makers understandably want to know about tradeoffs and costs, especially the value added (or not) by new, potentially more expensive treatments. This report will focus on patient and clinician perspectives, which substantially overlap. Figure 1A summarizes common clinical tasks such as screening, diagnosing, treatment targeting, and monitoring outcomes. Treatment targeting entails the selection of the best treatment for specific patients or, conversely, the avoidance of treatments that are rather certain to fail for specific patients (the core of personalized medicine). WHY ARE THERE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAPS?Both conceptual and operational factors contribute to these gaps. Conceptual challenges include historical factors; scientific and academic incentives; intellectual silos among clinicians, researchers, and other stakeholders; and the failure to adequately recognize and address the tension entailed in nomothetic and ideographic perspectives in the development, reporting, and application of evidence. Operational challenges include budgets, funding priorities, costs, publication practices, and the growing research burdens placed on both patients and researchers. Conceptual FactorsHistorical assumptions. We have generally assumed that mental health, medical, and surgical practitioners, once armed with a new clinical test or treatment, will figure out by clinical experience how to best use it. Clinical experience would result in consequent wisdom (ie, the "art of medicine"), so research would not be needed.Once, the surprisingly wide practice variations were recognized. The potential benefit of reducing ineffective or unsafe variations was clear. Practice guidelines were developed to summarize the evidence and recommend evidence-based practices. These recommendations, while helpful, have been of limited value due to the dearth of empirical evidence regarding who, how, when, and in what contexts any specific treatment or clinical test should be selected, avoided, placed in a sequence, combined, or otherwise personalized. This evidence is often just not available.Scientific and academic incentives. Historically, academic incentives have been highly focused on individual researchers, but this fo...

show abstract

Outcomes on the pharmacopsychometric triangle in bupropion‐SR vs. buspirone augmentation of citalopram in the STAR*D trial

Abstract: In all domains of the pharmacopsychometric triangle, bupropion-SR was superior to buspirone as augmentation therapy in depressed outpatients not responding to citalopram.

Cited by 40 publications

References 22 publications

A Systematic Review of the Clinimetric Properties of the 6-Item Version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D<sub>6</sub>)

A Systematic Review of the Clinimetric Properties of the 6-Item Version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D<sub>6</sub>)

Do not blame the SSRIs: blame the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Narrowing the Gaps Between What We Know and What We Do in Psychiatry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About