Trial reportNeuropsychopharmacology reports2022
Central monitoring of depression and anxiety symptoms reduces placebo responses in depression clinical trials: A post hoc exploratory analysis of data from the phase III CCT-004 trial of vortioxetine.
Trial report in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimClinical trials of antidepressants often fail to demonstrate their efficacy versus placebo, suggesting that patient selection based on physician ratings of depression may contribute to a high placebo response.
methodsIn the CCT-004 trial of vortioxetine, central monitoring was employed to compare physician and patient ratings of depression and anxiety at baseline and over time to identify factors contributing to a large placebo response, as well as to explore the potential of a unique patient-rated clinical measure combining QIDS-J and Himorogi Self-rating Anxiety Scale (HSAS), to contribute to optimal patient selection at baseline and patient monitoring over time.
resultsThe CCT-004 trial showed similar trends between the QIDS-J and MADRS (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) ratings. It was suggested that central monitoring of the QIDS-J and MADRS ratings of depression and anxiety symptoms helped reduce the baseline score inflation by calling the study sites' attention to discrepancies between these ratings at baseline; it also allowed these ratings to be assessed for their concordance over time. Of note, MDD patients with baseline QIDS-J scores ≥11/HSAS ≤19 were associated with the smallest placebo response, with the effect size being larger than that for those with QIDS-J scores ≤10/HSAS ≥20.
conclusionThe use of both physician and patient ratings of depression and anxiety symptoms at baseline and over time, as well as their central monitoring, helped minimize the baseline score inflation and optimize patient monitoring over time, and allowed the antidepressant to be evaluated for its full therapeutic potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.