The authors disclose the following financial relationships within the past 3 years: Conflict of Interest: By a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to the University of North Carolina Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness Center (contract no. HHSA290200500401). The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by AHRQ.
Does the presence of accompanying symptom clusters differentiate the comparative effectiveness of second-line medication strategies for treating depression?†
Article first published online: 2 SEP 2011
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Depression and Anxiety
Volume 28, Issue 11, pages 989–998, November 2011
How to Cite
Gaynes, B. N., Farley, J. F., Dusetzina, S. B., Ellis, A. R., Hansen, R. A., Miller, W. C. and Stürmer, T. (2011), Does the presence of accompanying symptom clusters differentiate the comparative effectiveness of second-line medication strategies for treating depression?. Depress. Anxiety, 28: 989–998. doi: 10.1002/da.20898
- Issue published online: 10 NOV 2011
- Article first published online: 2 SEP 2011
- Manuscript Accepted: 6 AUG 2011
- Manuscript Revised: 2 AUG 2011
- Manuscript Received: 23 JUN 2011
- propensity score;
- symptom cluster;
- medication selection
Background: We explored whether clinical outcomes differ by treatment strategy following initial antidepressant treatment failure among patients with and without clinically relevant symptom clusters. Methods: The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial was used to examine depression remission and response in patients with coexisting anxiety, atypical features, insomnia, and low energy. We applied propensity scoring to control for selection bias that precluded comparisons between augmentation and switch strategies in the original trial. Binomial regressions compared the likelihood of remission or response among patients with and without symptom clusters for switch versus augmentation strategies (n = 269 per arm); augmentation strategy type (n = 565); and switch strategy type (n = 727). Results: We found no statistically significant difference in remission or response rates between augmentation or switch strategies. However, symptom clusters did distinguish among augmentation and switch strategies, respectively. For patients with low energy, augmentation with buspirone was less likely to produce remission than augmentation with bupropion (remission Risk Ratio (RR): 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35–0.85, response RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.03). Also, for patients with low energy, switching to venlafaxine or bupropion was less likely to produce remission than switching to sertraline (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.36–0.97; RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.38–1.06, respectively). Conclusions: Remission and response rates following initial antidepressant treatment failure did not differ by treatment strategy for patients with coexisting atypical symptoms or insomnia. However, some second-step treatments for depression may be more effective than others in the presence of coexisting low energy. Subsequent prospective testing is necessary to confirm these initial findings. Depression and Anxiety, 2011. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.