Cited by 165Health and Medical Research ImpactsTreatment of Major DepressionStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The NIMH experimental medicine initiative

Open access
Insel, Thomas R.·2015·World Psychiatry

Abstract

Much has been written about the dire state of treatment development for mental disorders 1. While there has been progress in the development of devices and psychosocial treatments, psychopharmacology over the past decade appears to have stalled after four decades of exuberant growth 2. There are several reasons for the lack of progress in medication development: preclinical studies appear neither predictive or reproducible, there are few novel targets for Phase I and Phase II studies, and several expensive recent Phase III studies have failed. Psychiatric drug development is now seen as high risk. Indeed, large pharmaceutical companies have reduced investment in central nervous system disorders from 267 projects in 2009 to 129 projects last year, with many of these projects focusing on neurological and not psychiatric disorders 3. It is important to note that four decades of drug development resulting in over 20 antipsychotics and over 30 antidepressants have not demonstrably reduced the morbidity or mortality of mental disorders. While there may be many explanations for the unabated public health needs associated with mental illness, there can be little doubt that we need additional research and development to provide the preventive interventions and cures that will reduce morbidity and mortality. Current medications have an important role in the toolbox of interventions but, either alone or in combination with other treatments, they have not proven sufficient. The question is how to develop the next generation of interventions. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has tried to answer this question by focusing on each of the issues noted above: problematic preclinical studies, lack of novel targets, and failure of Phase III trials. Others have argued for the need to move rapidly into human trials due to the difficulty extrapolating from preclinical results 4, 5. Here we describe changes in the clinical trials portfolio to search for novel targets and increase the likelihood of Phase III success. The approach has been called the shift to experimental medicine at NIMH. Although this term has been used to describe broadly the clinical study of mechanisms of disease, for NIMH, experimental medicine refers to an approach to clinical trials. The first step before changing the clinical trials approach was a review of the portfolio in 2012. In the previous year, NIMH supported over 250 clinical trials at a cost of roughly $150M per year. More than half of these trials were for psychosocial interventions. Our initial review demonstrated a large number of under-powered trials that were slow to recruit and even slower to publish. Indeed, a 2012 review of trials across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported that fewer than half published results within 30 months of completion 6. Most trials were looking for an efficacy signal, but were designed not to rigorously test a hypothesis about how or for whom the intervention should work. Few trials included any test of mechanism of action. Trials rarely included measures of dose-response or tests of duration that could inform their adoption and reimbursement in the real world. Given the range of issues, NIMH announced in 2014 that it would no longer accept proposals for clinical trials unless they were responsive to a Request for Applications (RFA). In 2014, NIMH released three RFAs to solicit proposals for clinical trials (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/). In line with an experimental medicine approach, each of these RFAs refocused trials from simple tests of efficacy to studies of disease mechanism 7. The new approach required a measure of target engagement, where the target ideally was linked to some mechanism of disease but could also be a mechanism of action of the intervention. The prototype of a target might be a measure of receptor occupancy. A clinical trial of a drug thought to work as a dopamine receptor antagonist would need to demonstrate a dose for engagement or occupancy of the dopamine receptor and then test for efficacy at that dose. This simple requirement has two important implications. First, it allows negative efficacy data to be informative. Second, it allows a test of the importance of the target. In five decades of treatment development, there have been essentially no mechanisms falsified in neuropharmacology, in part because target mechanisms are rarely tested in clinical trials. Of course, receptor occupancy is a high bar for target engagement, unlikely to be feasible in most studies. For psychosocial studies, the target could be a shift in attentional bias or social cognition or family dynamics, as assessed by changes in objective measures included in the trial. For device studies, the target might be a change in EEG or evoked potentials or the blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal. The choice of target is critical because the choice of intervention is almost always iterative. Each new intervention is a st

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 · 10.1002/wps.20227

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Insel, T. R.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Insel, Thomas R.
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
151-153
ISSN
1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1563383822
Cited by
165
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
12.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
experimental medicine, psychiatric drug development, mental illness, trial recruitment, trial publication, novel therapeutic targets, phase III trial failure, psychopharmacology, National Institute of Mental Health, research funding priorities

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