PubMed · 15366307
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Gail P Horsley. Understanding depression today.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15366307/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: It has been recommended that onset of antidepressant action be assessed using survival analyses with assessments taken at least twice per week. However, such an assessment schedule is problematic to implement. The present study assessed the feasibility of comparing onset of action between treatments using a categorical repeated measures approach with a traditional assessment schedule. METHOD: Four scenarios representative of antidepressant clinical trials were created by varying mean improvements over time. Two assessment schedules were compared within the simulated 8-week studies: (i) 'frequent' assessment--16 postbaseline visits (twice-weekly for 8 weeks); (ii) 'traditional' assessment--5 postbaseline visits (Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8). Onset was defined as a 20 per cent improvement from baseline, and had to be sustained at all subsequent assessments. Differences between treatments were analysed with a survival analysis (KM = Kaplan-Meier product limit method) and a categorical mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis (MMRM-CAT). RESULTS: More frequent assessments resulted in small reductions in empirical standard errors compared with traditional assessments for both analytic methods. More frequent assessments altered estimates of treatment group differences in KM such that power was increased when the difference between treatments was increasing over time, but power decreased when the treatment difference decreased over time. More frequent assessments had a minimal effect on estimates of treatment group differences in MMRM-CAT. The MMRM-CAT analysis of data from a traditional assessment schedule provided adequate control of type I error, and had power comparable to or greater than that with KM analyses of data from either a frequent or a traditional assessment schedule. CONCLUSION: In the scenarios tested in this study it was reasonable to assess treatment group differences in onset of action with MMRM-CAT and a traditional assessment schedule. Additional research is needed to assess whether these findings hold in data with drop-out and across definitions of onset.
Over two thirds of people suffering from depression complain of pain with or without reporting psychological symptoms. Physical symptoms are more prevalent among the women, the elderly, the poor, and in children population. Successful treatment of depression in children complicated by pain symptoms constitutes a great clinical challenge. Duloxetine has already emerged as a safe and effective treatment option for adult depressed patients with painful physical symptoms. However, no data exist in literature which suggests use of duloxetine in childhood and adolescent population for the same clinical indication. We report a case documenting successful use of duloxetine in a depressed girl child who also had severe pain and dissociative symptoms.
BACKGROUND: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) has long been viewed as an efficacious treatment for depression, with a large number of published studies allowing its efficacy and utility to be considered closely. METHODS: We review original studies and the one published meta-analysis of controlled efficacy trials, examining acute-phase and prophylactic studies, comparison studies with cognitive behaviour therapy, and studies evaluating its efficacy in combination with pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: We highlight difficulties in evaluating any psychotherapy, particularly when tested as having universal application for varying depressive conditions, but do identify circumstances where IPT may have specific salience. CONCLUSIONS: As for other treatments, IPT is unlikely to be a universal therapy for depression. This review offers suggestions as to where its preferential utility may lie, and argues for modified research paradigms to assist definition of its therapeutic niche.