Evaluation of structural models to describe the effect of placebo upon the time course of major depressive disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the leading cause of disability in many countries. Designing and evaluating clinical trials of antidepressants is difficult due to the pronounced and variable placebo response which is poorly defined and may be affected by trial design. Approximately half of recent clinical trials of commonly used antidepressants failed to show statistical superiority for the drug over placebo, which is partly attributable to a marked placebo response. These failures suggest the need for new tools to evaluate placebo response and drug effect in depression, as well as to help design more informative clinical trials. Disease progression modeling is a tool that has been employed for such evaluations and several models have been proposed to describe MDD. Placebo data from three clinical depression trials were used to evaluate three published models: the inverse Bateman (IBM), indirect response (IDR) and transit (TM) models. Each model was used to describe Hamilton Rating Scale for major depression (HAMD) data and results were evaluated. The IBM model had several deficiencies, making it unsuitable. The IDR and TM models performed well on most evaluations and appear suitable. Comparing the IDR and TM models showed less clear distinctions, although overall the TM was found to be somewhat better than the IDR model. Model based evaluation can provide a useful tool for evaluating the time course of MDD and detecting drug effect. However, the models used should be robust, with well estimated parameters.

[1]  M. Hamilton,et al.  Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. , 1967, The British journal of social and clinical psychology.

[2]  R. Larsson,et al.  A general model for time‐dissociated pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic relationships exemplified by paclitaxel myelosuppression , 1998, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[3]  William J Jusko,et al.  Diversity of mechanism-based pharmacodynamic models. , 2003, Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals.

[4]  E Niclas Jonsson,et al.  More efficient clinical trials through use of scientific model‐based statistical tests , 2002, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[5]  L. Sheiner,et al.  Evaluating Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Models Using the Posterior Predictive Check , 2001, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[6]  Nicholas H. G. Holford,et al.  The Visual Predictive Check Superiority to Standard Diagnostic (Rorschach) Plots , 2005 .

[7]  A Yafune,et al.  Bootstrap approach for constructing confidence intervals for population pharmacokinetic parameters. I: A use of bootstrap standard error. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Arif Khan,et al.  Study designs and outcomes in antidepressant clinical trials. , 2005, Essential psychopharmacology.

[9]  France Mentré,et al.  Development and implementation of the population Fisher information matrix for the evaluation of population pharmacokinetic designs , 2001, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[10]  J. Mundt,et al.  Factors contributing to failed trials of new agents: can technology prevent some problems? , 2002, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.

[11]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Forecasting individual pharmacokinetics , 1979, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[12]  M O Karlsson,et al.  Diagnosing Model Diagnostics , 2007, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[13]  W. van den Brink,et al.  Natural course and placebo response in short-term, placebo-controlled studies in major depression: a meta-analysis of published and non-published studies. , 2004, Pharmacopsychiatry.

[14]  M. Detke,et al.  Placebo Response and Antidepressant Clinical Trial Outcome , 2003, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[15]  MD N. Canas,et al.  Reversible cervical hydromyelia in subacute combined degeneration , 2005, Neurology.

[16]  Lewis B. Sheiner,et al.  Estimation of population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters from routine clinical data , 1977, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[17]  M. Tod,et al.  A Mathematical Model for Paroxetine Antidepressant Effect Time Course and Its Interaction with Pindolol , 2005, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[18]  N. Ryan,et al.  Major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: clinical trial design and antidepressant efficacy. , 2005, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.

[19]  Alain Mallet,et al.  Optimal design in random-effects regression models , 1997 .

[20]  Varun Garg,et al.  Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses , 1993, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[21]  D. Mould Developing Models of Disease Progression , 2006 .

[22]  Ene I. Ette,et al.  Pharmacometrics : the science of quantitative pharmacology , 2007 .

[23]  R. Dworkin,et al.  Placebo response in clinical trials of depression and its implications for research on chronic neuropathic pain , 2005, Neurology.

[24]  D R Mould,et al.  Using Disease Progression Models as a Tool to Detect Drug Effect , 2007, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[25]  France Mentré,et al.  Fisher information matrix for non‐linear mixed‐effects models: evaluation and application for optimal design of enoxaparin population pharmacokinetics , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  Timothy Goggin,et al.  A semimechanistic and mechanistic population PK-PD model for biomarker response to ibandronate, a new bisphosphonate for the treatment of osteoporosis. , 2004, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[27]  M. Thase,et al.  Improving clinical trials: American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology recommendations. , 2002, Archives of general psychiatry.

[28]  Lewis B. Sheiner,et al.  The NONMEM System , 1980 .

[29]  M. Trivedi,et al.  Does a Placebo Run-In or a Placebo Treatment Cell Affect the Efficacy of Antidepressant Medications? , 1994, Neuropsychopharmacology.