Search

Two core features of depression include depressed mood (heightened distress) and anhedonia (reduced pleasure). Despite their centrality to depression, studies have not examined their contribution to treatment outcomes in a randomized clinical trial providing mainstream treatments like antidepressant medications (ADM) and cognitive therapy (CT). We used baseline distress and anhedonia derived from a factor analysis of the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire to predict remission and recovery in 433 individuals with recurrent/chronic major depressive disorder. Patients were provided with only ADM or both ADM and CT. Overall, higher baseline distress and anhedonia predicted longer times to remission within one year and recovery within three years. When controlling for treatment condition, distress improved prediction of outcomes over and above anhedonia, while anhedonia did not improve prediction of outcomes over and above distress. Interactions with treatment condition demonstrated that individuals with higher distress and anhedonia benefited from receiving CT in addition to ADM, whereas there was no added benefit of CT for individuals with lower distress and anhedonia. Assessing distress and anhedonia prior to treatment may help select patients who will benefit most from CT in addition to ADM. For the treatments and outcome measures tested, utilizing distress to guide treatment planning may yield the greatest benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00057577., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective : We use a new variable selection procedure for treatment selection which generates treatment recommendations based on pre-treatment characteristics for adults with mild-to-moderate depression deciding between cognitive behavioral (CBT) versus psychodynamic therapy (PDT). Method : Data are drawn from a randomized comparison of CBT versus PDT for depression ( N  = 167, 71% female, mean-age = 39.6). The approach combines four different statistical techniques to identify patient characteristics associated consistently with differential treatment response. Variables are combined to generate predictions indicating each individual's optimal-treatment. The average outcomes for patients who received their indicated treatment versus those who did not were compared retrospectively to estimate model utility. Results : Of 49 predictors examined, depression severity, anxiety sensitivity, extraversion, and psychological treatment-needs were included in the final model. The average post-treatment Hamilton-Depression-Rating-Scale score was 1.6 points lower (95%CI = [0.5:2.8]; d  = 0.21) for those who received their indicated-treatment compared to non-indicated. Among the 60% of patients with the strongest treatment recommendations, that advantage grew to 2.6 (95%CI = [1.4:3.7]; d  = 0.37). Conclusions : Variable selection procedures differ in their characterization of the importance of predictive variables. Attending to consistently-indicated predictors may be sensible when constructing treatment selection models. The small N and lack of separate validation sample indicate a need for prospective tests before this model is used.

Objective: Research on predictors of treatment outcome in depression has largely derived from randomized clinical trials involving strict standardization of treatments, stringent patient exclusion criteria, and careful selection and supervision of study clinicians. The extent to which findings from such studies generalize to naturalistic psychiatric settings is unclear. This study sought to predict depression outcomes for patients seeking treatment within an intensive psychiatric hospital setting and while comparing the performance of a range of machine learning approaches., Method: Depressed patients (N = 484; ages 18-72; 89% White) receiving treatment within a psychiatric partial hospital program delivering pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy were split into a training sample and holdout sample. First, within the training sample, 51 pretreatment variables were submitted to 13 machine learning algorithms to predict, via cross-validation, posttreatment Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression scores. Second, the best performing modeling approach (lowest mean squared error; MSE) from the training sample was selected to predict outcome in the holdout sample., Results: The best performing model in the training sample was elastic net regularization (ENR; MSE = 20.49, R2 = .28), which had comparable performance in the holdout sample (MSE = 11.26; R2 = .38). There were 14 pretreatment variables that predicted outcome. To demonstrate the translation of an ENR model to personalized prediction of treatment outcome, a patient-specific prognosis calculator is presented., Conclusions: Informed by pretreatment patient characteristics, such predictive models could be used to communicate prognosis to clinicians and to guide treatment planning. Identified predictors of poor prognosis may suggest important targets for intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Mental health researchers and clinicians have long sought answers to the question "What works for whom?" The goal of precision medicine is to provide evidence-based answers to this question. Treatment selection in depression aims to help each individual receive the treatment, among the available options, that is most likely to lead to a positive outcome for them. Although patient variables that are predictive of response to treatment have been identified, this knowledge has not yet translated into real-world treatment recommendations. The Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) and related approaches combine information obtained prior to the initiation of treatment into multivariable prediction models that can generate individualized predictions to help clinicians and patients select the right treatment. With increasing availability of advanced statistical modeling approaches, as well as novel predictive variables and big data, treatment selection models promise to contribute to improved outcomes in depression.

Introduction: Although psychotherapies for depression produce equivalent outcomes, individual patients respond differently to different therapies. Predictors of outcome have been identified in the context of randomized trials, but this information has not been used to predict which treatment works best for the depressed individual. In this paper, we aim to replicate a recently developed treatment selection method, using data from an RCT comparing the effects of cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT)., Methods: 134 depressed patients completed the pre- and post-treatment BDI-II assessment. First, we identified baseline predictors and moderators. Second, individual treatment recommendations were generated by combining the identified predictors and moderators in an algorithm that produces the Personalized Advantage Index (PAI), a measure of the predicted advantage in one therapy compared to the other, using standard regression analyses and the leave-one-out cross-validation approach., Results: We found five predictors (gender, employment status, anxiety, personality disorder and quality of life) and six moderators (somatic complaints, cognitive problems, paranoid symptoms, interpersonal self-sacrificing, attributional style and number of life events) of treatment outcome. The mean average PAI value was 8.9 BDI points, and 63% of the sample was predicted to have a clinically meaningful advantage in one of the therapies. Those who were randomized to their predicted optimal treatment (either CT or IPT) had an observed mean end-BDI of 11.8, while those who received their predicted non-optimal treatment had an end-BDI of 17.8 (effect size for the difference = 0.51)., Discussion: Depressed patients who were randomized to their predicted optimal treatment fared much better than those randomized to their predicted non-optimal treatment. The PAI provides a great opportunity for formal decision-making to improve individual patient outcomes in depression. Although the utility of the PAI approach will need to be evaluated in prospective research, this study promotes the development of a treatment selection approach that can be used in regular mental health care, advancing the goals of personalized medicine.