Cargando…

Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials

BACKGROUND: Failed treatment trials are common in major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression, and remotely performed multifaceted, centralized structured interviews can potentially enhance signal detection by ensuring that enrolled patients meet eligibility criteria. METHODS: We as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freeman, Marlene P., Pooley, James, Flynn, Martina J., Baer, Lee, Mischoulon, David, Mou, David, Fava, Maurizio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28187008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JCP.0000000000000669
_version_ 1782510344357281792
author Freeman, Marlene P.
Pooley, James
Flynn, Martina J.
Baer, Lee
Mischoulon, David
Mou, David
Fava, Maurizio
author_facet Freeman, Marlene P.
Pooley, James
Flynn, Martina J.
Baer, Lee
Mischoulon, David
Mou, David
Fava, Maurizio
author_sort Freeman, Marlene P.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Failed treatment trials are common in major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression, and remotely performed multifaceted, centralized structured interviews can potentially enhance signal detection by ensuring that enrolled patients meet eligibility criteria. METHODS: We assessed the use of a specific remote structured interview that validated the diagnosis, level of treatment resistance, and depression severity. The objectives were to (1) assess the rate at which patients who were deemed eligible for participation in trials by site investigators were ineligible, (2) assess the reasons for ineligibility, (3) compare rates of ineligibility between academic and nonacademic sites, (4) compare eligibility between US and non-US sites, and (5) report the placebo response rates in trials utilizing this quality assurance approach, comparing its placebo response rates with those reported in the literature. Methods included a pooled analysis of 9 studies that utilized this methodology (SAFER interviews). RESULTS: Overall, 15.33% of patients who had been deemed eligible at research sites were not eligible after the structured interviews. The most common reason was that patients did not meet the study requirements for level of treatment resistance. Pass rates were significantly higher at non-US compared with US sites (94.6% vs 83.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). There was not a significant difference between academic and nonacademic sites (87.8% vs 82.4%; P = 0.08). Placebo response rates were 13.0% to 27.3%, below the 30% to 40% average in antidepressant clinical trials, suggesting a benefit of the quality assurance provided by these interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a remotely structured interview by experienced clinical researchers was feasible and possibly contributed to lower-than-average placebo response rates. The difference between US and non-US sites should be the subject of further research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5325248
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53252482017-03-08 Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials Freeman, Marlene P. Pooley, James Flynn, Martina J. Baer, Lee Mischoulon, David Mou, David Fava, Maurizio J Clin Psychopharmacol Original Contributions BACKGROUND: Failed treatment trials are common in major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression, and remotely performed multifaceted, centralized structured interviews can potentially enhance signal detection by ensuring that enrolled patients meet eligibility criteria. METHODS: We assessed the use of a specific remote structured interview that validated the diagnosis, level of treatment resistance, and depression severity. The objectives were to (1) assess the rate at which patients who were deemed eligible for participation in trials by site investigators were ineligible, (2) assess the reasons for ineligibility, (3) compare rates of ineligibility between academic and nonacademic sites, (4) compare eligibility between US and non-US sites, and (5) report the placebo response rates in trials utilizing this quality assurance approach, comparing its placebo response rates with those reported in the literature. Methods included a pooled analysis of 9 studies that utilized this methodology (SAFER interviews). RESULTS: Overall, 15.33% of patients who had been deemed eligible at research sites were not eligible after the structured interviews. The most common reason was that patients did not meet the study requirements for level of treatment resistance. Pass rates were significantly higher at non-US compared with US sites (94.6% vs 83.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). There was not a significant difference between academic and nonacademic sites (87.8% vs 82.4%; P = 0.08). Placebo response rates were 13.0% to 27.3%, below the 30% to 40% average in antidepressant clinical trials, suggesting a benefit of the quality assurance provided by these interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a remotely structured interview by experienced clinical researchers was feasible and possibly contributed to lower-than-average placebo response rates. The difference between US and non-US sites should be the subject of further research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017-04 2017-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5325248/ /pubmed/28187008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JCP.0000000000000669 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Contributions
Freeman, Marlene P.
Pooley, James
Flynn, Martina J.
Baer, Lee
Mischoulon, David
Mou, David
Fava, Maurizio
Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials
title Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials
title_full Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials
title_fullStr Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials
title_full_unstemmed Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials
title_short Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials
title_sort guarding the gate: remote structured assessments to enhance enrollment precision in depression trials
topic Original Contributions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28187008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JCP.0000000000000669
work_keys_str_mv AT freemanmarlenep guardingthegateremotestructuredassessmentstoenhanceenrollmentprecisionindepressiontrials
AT pooleyjames guardingthegateremotestructuredassessmentstoenhanceenrollmentprecisionindepressiontrials
AT flynnmartinaj guardingthegateremotestructuredassessmentstoenhanceenrollmentprecisionindepressiontrials
AT baerlee guardingthegateremotestructuredassessmentstoenhanceenrollmentprecisionindepressiontrials
AT mischoulondavid guardingthegateremotestructuredassessmentstoenhanceenrollmentprecisionindepressiontrials
AT moudavid guardingthegateremotestructuredassessmentstoenhanceenrollmentprecisionindepressiontrials
AT favamaurizio guardingthegateremotestructuredassessmentstoenhanceenrollmentprecisionindepressiontrials