No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Does placebo help establish equivalence in trials of new antidepressants?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2020
Summary
Clinical trials of new antidepressants usually compare a new drug to a reference antidepressant and to a placebo. The placebo is intended to validate the trial in the case of a no-difference outcome, i.e., it helps in assessing equivalence. The aim of the present paper is to test whether placebo has indeed helped establish equivalence of effect in comparative trials of new antidepressants. We carried out an example of sample size determination first in a trial to show a difference between the new and control drug, and second in a trial to assess equivalence between two competing drugs. Finally, we retrospectively calculated the maximum difference accepted as equivalence of effect in published trials of new antidepressants. Assuming a response rate to antidepressants of 70%, 294 subjects for each treatment group are needed to show a 10% difference between two antidepressant drugs and more than 1,300 to assess equivalence at a 5% level of δ, the maximum difference acceptable as equivalence of effect. The level of δ in published trials of new antidepressants ranges between 12 and 43%, suggesting they cannot claim to demonstrate equivalence of effect. Therefore, the presence of a placebo arm for comparison didn’t help establish whether both drugs really worked the same way. Comparative trials of new antidepressants should adopt a two-arm design, a suitable number of patients and a high standard in the experimental design in order to minimise possible control-event rate variation.
- Type
- Original article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS 2000
References
Hale, A.SABC of mental health. Depression BMJ 315 1997 43–4610.1136/bmj.315.7099.43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pathare, S.R, Paton, CABC of mental health. Psychotropic drug treatment BMJ 315 1997 661–66410.1136/bmj.315.7109.661CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brody, B.AWhen are placebo-controlled trials no longer appropriate? Control Clin Trials 18 1997 602–61210.1016/S0197-2456(97)00006-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streiner, DPlacebo-controlled trials: when are they needed? Schizophr Res 35 1999 201–21010.1016/S0920-9964(98)00126-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streiner, D.LSample size and power in psychiatric research Can J Psychiatry 35 1990 616–620CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, B, Jarvis, P, Lewis, J.A, Ebbutt, A.FTrials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods BMJ 313 1996 36–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbui, C, Hotopf, MAmitriptyline: the reference antidepressant? Amitriptyline versus other tricyclic drugs and SSRIs in depressionThe Cochrane Library in pressGoogle Scholar
Hotopf, M.H, Hardy, R, Lewis, GDiscontinuation rates of SSRI and tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis and investigation of heterogeneity Br J Psychiatry 170 1997 120–12710.1192/bjp.170.2.120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joffe, R, Sokolov, S, Streiner, DAntidepressant treatment of depression: a metanalysis Can J Psychiatry 41 1996 613–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R.J, Sackett, D.LThe number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect BMJ 310 1995 452–454CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, K.J, Michels, K.BThe continuing unethical use of placebo controls New Engl J M 331 1994 394–39810.1056/NEJM199408113310611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Alonso, F, Guallar, E, Bakke, O.M, Carn, XUse and abuse of placebo in phase III trials Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54 1998 101–105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hotopf, M, Lewis, G, Normand, CPutting trials on trial – the costs and the consequences of small trials in depression: a systematic review of methodology J Epidemiol Comm Health 51 1997 354–35810.1136/jech.51.4.354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garattini, S, Barbui, C, Saraceno, BAntidepressant agents: from tricyclics to serotonin reuptake inhibitors Psychol M 28 1998 1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, D.L, Wennberg, J.EChoosing the best research design for each question. It's time to stop squabbling over the “best” method BMJ 315 1997 163610.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, D.GStatistics and ethics in medical research. III How large a sample? BMJ 281 1980 1336–1338CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altman, D.G, Bland, J.MAbsence of evidence in not evidence of absence BMJ 311 1995 48510.1136/bmj.311.7003.485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tramèr, M.R, Reynolds, J.M, Moore, A, McQuay, H.JWhen placebo controlled trials are essential and equivalence trials are inadequate BMJ 317 1998 875–880CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medawar, CThe antidepressant web. Marketing depression and making medicines work Int J Risk Safety M 10 1997 75–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, DThe three faces of the antidepressants: a critical commentary on the clinical-economic context of diagnosis J Nerv Mental Dis 187 1999 174–180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hotopf, M, Churchill, R, Lewis, GThe pragmatic randomised controlled trial in psychiatry Br J Psychiatry 175 1999 217–22310.1192/bjp.175.3.217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassano, G.B, Conti, L, Massimetti, G, Mengali, F, Waekelin, J.S, Levine, JUse of a standardised documentation system in the conduct of a multicenter international trial comparing fluvoxamine, imipramine and placebo Psychopharmacol Bull 22 1986 52–58Google Scholar
Cohn, J.B, Wilcox, CA comparison of fluoxetine, imipramine, and placebo in patients with major depressive disorder J Clin Psychiatry 46 1985 26–31Google ScholarPubMed
Dominguez, R.A, Goldstein, B.J, Jacobson, A.F, Steinbook, R.MA double-blind placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine and imipramine in depression J Clin Psychiatry 46 1985 84–87Google ScholarPubMed
Doogan, D.P, Langdon, C.JA double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of sertraline and dothiepin in the treatment of major depression in general practice Int Clin Psychopharmacol 9 1994 95–100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunbar, G.C, Cohn, J.B, Fabre, L.F, Feighner, J.P, Fieve, R.R, Mendels, J et al. A comparison of paroxetine, imipramine and placebo in depressed outpatients Br J Psychatry 159 1991 394–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feighner, J.P, Boyer, W.F, Meredith, C.H, Hendrickson, G.GA double-blind comparison of fluvoxetine, imipramine and placebo in outpatients with major depression Int Clin Psychopharmacol 4 1989 127–134CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feighner, J.P, Boyer, W.F, Meredith, C.H, Hendrickson, G.GA placebo-controlled inpatient comparison of fluvoxamine maleate and imipramine in major depression Int Clin Psychopharmacol 4 1989 239–244CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapierre, Y.D, Browne, M, Horn, E, Oyewumi, L.K, Sarantidis, D, Roberts, N et al. Treatment of major affective disorder with fluvoxamine J Clin Psychiatry 48 1987 65–68Google ScholarPubMed
Lydiard, R.B, Knight Laird, L, Morton, A, Steele, T.E, Kellner, C, Laraia, M.T et al. Fluvoxamine, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of depressed outpatients: effects on depression Psychopharmacol Bull 25 1989 68–70Google ScholarPubMed
March, J.S, Kobak, K.A, Jefferson, J.W, Mazza, J, Greist, J.HA double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine versus imipramine in outpatients with major depression J Clin Psychatry 51 1990 200–202Google ScholarPubMed
Muijen, M, Roy, D, Silverstone, T, Mehmet, A, Christie, MA comparative clinical trial of fluoxetine, mianserin and placebo in depressed outpatients Acta Psychiatr Scand 78 1988 384–390CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norton, K.R, Sireling, L.I, Bhat, A.V, Rao, B, Paykel, E.SA double-blind comparison of fluvoxamine, imipramine and placebo in depressed patients J Affect Disord 7 1984 297–308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrivastava, R.K, Shrivastava, S.H.P, Overweg, N, Blumhardt, C.LA double-blind comparison of paroxetine, imipramine, and placebo in major depression J Clin Psychiatry 53 Suppl 2 1992 48–51Google ScholarPubMed
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.