Use of Mental Health Telemetry to Enhance Identification and Predictive Value of Early Changes During Augmentation Treatment of Major Depression
Abstract
Standard clinical trial methodology in depression does not allow for careful examination of early changes in symptom intensity. The purpose of this study was to use daily "Mental Health Telemetry" (MHT) to prospectively record change in depressive and anxiety symptoms for depressed patients receiving augmentation treatment, and determine the extent and predictive capacity of early changes. We report results of a 6-week, open-label study of the addition of quetiapine XR (range, 50-300 mg) for adult patients (n = 26) with major depressive disorder who were nonresponsive to antidepressant treatment. In addition to regular study visits, all participants completed daily, wirelessly transmitted self-report ratings of symptoms on a Smartphone. Daily and 3-day moving average mean scores were calculated, and associations between early symptom change and eventual response to treatment were determined. Improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms was identified as early as day 1 of treatment. Of the total decline in depression severity over 6 weeks, 9% was present at day 1, 28% at day 2, 39% at days 3 and 4, 65% at day 7, and 80% at day 10. Self-report rating of early improvement (≥20%) in depressive symptoms at day 7 significantly predicted responder status at week 6 (P = 0.03). Clinician-rated depressive and anxiety symptoms only became significantly associated with responder status at day 14. In conclusion, very early changes in depressive symptoms were identified using MHT, early changes accounted for most of total change, and MHT-recorded improvement as early as day 7 significantly predicted response to treatment at study end point.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A few selected EMA studies did not report compliance information.
“A few studies did not report this information [35,40,41,42,51,57,60].”
From Current state and future directions of technology-based ecological momentary assessment and intervention for major depressive disorder: a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [40]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 22
- Authors
- Schaffer, A., Kreindler, D., Reis, C., & Levitt, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Schaffer, Ayal
- Kreindler, David
- Reis, Catherine
- Levitt, Anthony J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 775-781
- ISSN
- 0271-0749 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076587638
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, antidepressant augmentation, quetiapine, early treatment response prediction, daily symptom monitoring, anxiety symptoms, treatment-resistant depression
- MeSH terms
- Quetiapine Fumarate, Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Dibenzothiazepines, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Telemetry, Time Factors, Antipsychotic Agents, 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