Predictors and Moderators of Remission With Aripiprazole Augmentation in Treatment-Resistant Late-Life Depression
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IMPORTANCE: Safe, efficacious, second-line pharmacological treatment options exist for the large portion of older adults with major depressive disorder who do not respond to first-line pharmacotherapy. However, limited evidence exists to aid clinical decision making regarding which patients will benefit from which second-line treatments. OBJECTIVE: To test the moderating role of pretreatment executive function, severity of anxiety, and severity of medical comorbidity in remission of treatment-resistant late-life depression after aripiprazole augmentation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: As follow-up to a 12-week randomized clinical trial of aripiprazole augmentation for first-line treatment-resistant late-life depression (Incomplete Response in Late-Life Depression: Getting to Remission [IRL-GRey]), we evaluated the effects of the following potential moderators and their interactions with treatment: baseline assessments of executive function (set shifting measured by the Trail Making Test) and response inhibition control (measured by a Color-Word Interference task), anxiety symptoms, and medical comorbidity. Analyses were conducted in May and June 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Aripiprazole or placebo tablets were started at 2 mg daily and titrated as tolerated, to a maximal dose of 15 mg daily. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Remission of treatment-resistant late-life depression (defined as a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score of ≤10 at both of the last 2 consecutive visits). RESULTS: Of 181 trial participants (103 female [56.9%]) who were 60 years of age or older and whose major depression had failed to remit with venlafaxine hydrochloride monotherapy, 91 received aripiprazole and 90 received placebo. Remission occurred in 40 (43%) who received aripiprazole and 26 (29%) who received placebo. Baseline set shifting moderated the efficacy of aripiprazole augmentation (odds ratio [OR], 1.66 [95% CI, 1.05-2.62]; P = .03 for interaction with treatment). Among participants with a Trail Making Test scaled score of 7 or higher, the odds of remission were significantly higher with aripiprazole than with placebo (53% vs 28%; number needed to treat, 4; OR, 4.11 [95% CI, 1.83-9.20]). Among participants with a Trail Making Test scaled score of less than 7, aripiprazole and placebo were equally efficacious (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.15-2.80]). Greater severity of anxiety at baseline predicted a lower remission rate but did not moderate aripiprazole efficacy; each standard deviation greater anxiety severity was associated with 50% reduced odds of remission in both aripiprazole and placebo arms. Medical comorbidity and Color-Word Interference test performance were neither general predictors nor treatment-moderating factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Set-shifting performance indicates which older adults with treatment-resistant depression may respond favorably to augmentation with aripiprazole and thus may help to personalize treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00892047.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».