Cited by 276Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Reevaluating the Efficacy and Predictability of Antidepressant Treatments: A Symptom Clustering Approach

Open access
Chekroud, Adam M., Gueorguieva, Ralitza, Krumholz, Harlan M., Trivedi, Madhukar H., Krystal, John H., McCarthy, Gregory·2017·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Depressive severity is typically measured according to total scores on questionnaires that include a diverse range of symptoms despite convincing evidence that depression is not a unitary construct. When evaluated according to aggregate measurements, treatment efficacy is generally modest and differences in efficacy between antidepressant therapies are small. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of antidepressant treatments on empirically defined groups of symptoms and examine the replicability of these groups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-reported data on patients with depression from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial (n = 4039) were used to identify clusters of symptoms in a depressive symptom checklist. The findings were then replicated using the Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes (CO-MED) trial (n = 640). Mixed-effects regression analysis was then performed to determine whether observed symptom clusters have differential response trajectories using intent-to-treat data from both trials (n = 4706) along with 7 additional placebo and active-comparator phase 3 trials of duloxetine (n = 2515). Finally, outcomes for each cluster were estimated separately using machine-learning approaches. The study was conducted from October 28, 2014, to May 19, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Twelve items from the self-reported Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR) scale and 14 items from the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale. Higher scores on the measures indicate greater severity of the symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 4706 patients included in the first analysis, 1722 (36.6%) were male; mean (SD) age was 41.2 (13.3) years. Of the 2515 patients included in the second analysis, 855 (34.0%) were male; mean age was 42.65 (12.17) years. Three symptom clusters in the QIDS-SR scale were identified at baseline in STAR*D. This 3-cluster solution was replicated in CO-MED and was similar for the HAM-D scale. Antidepressants in general (8 of 9 treatments) were more effective for core emotional symptoms than for sleep or atypical symptoms. Differences in efficacy between drugs were often greater than the difference in efficacy between treatments and placebo. For example, high-dose duloxetine outperformed escitalopram in treating core emotional symptoms (effect size, 2.3 HAM-D points during 8 weeks, 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.1; P < .001), but escitalopram was not significantly different from placebo (effect size, 0.03 HAM-D points; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.8; P = .94). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Two common checklists used to measure depressive severity can produce statistically reliable clusters of symptoms. These clusters differ in their responsiveness to treatment both within and across different antidepressant medications. Selecting the best drug for a given cluster may have a bigger benefit than that gained by use of an active compound vs a placebo.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0025

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 276

Authors
Chekroud, A. M., Gueorguieva, R., Krumholz, H. M., Trivedi, M. H., Krystal, J. H., & McCarthy, G.
Affiliations
  • Yale New Haven Hospital (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Chekroud, Adam M.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2017-04-01
Volume
74
Issue
4
Pages
370
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2594270750
Cited by
276
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 17
FWCI
22.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
antidepressant efficacy, symptom clusters, depressive symptoms, duloxetine, escitalopram, STAR*D trial, treatment response trajectories, emotional symptoms, sleep symptoms, atypical depressive symptoms, antidepressant comparison, treatment response prediction, QIDS-SR, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, placebo response, relapse after treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Duloxetine Hydrochloride, Venlafaxine Hydrochloride, Mirtazapine, Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Aged, Antidepressive Agents, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Male, Mianserin, Middle Aged, Sleep, Syndrome, Citalopram, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Bupropion, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review