1 / 29

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D)

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D). Stephen Wisniewski, PhD Epidemiology Data Center STAR*D Data Coordinating Center University of Pittsburgh. Outline. Overview of STAR*D Introduction to the Equipoise-Stratified Randomized Design

jacob
Download Presentation

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) Stephen Wisniewski, PhD Epidemiology Data Center STAR*D Data Coordinating Center University of Pittsburgh

  2. Outline • Overview of STAR*D • Introduction to the Equipoise-Stratified Randomized Design • Implementation of the Equipoise Stratified Randomized Design in STAR*D

  3. Overview of STAR*D • Organization • National Coordinating Center (Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center) • Data Coordinating Center (Epidemiology Data Center, University of Pittsburgh) • 14 Regional Centers • 2-4 Clinical Sites • Primary Care and Specialty (Psychiatry) • Goal: Determine the best “next step” treatments for those with treatment resistant depression

  4. Obtain Consent Follow-up Satisfactory Response CIT Unsatisfactory Response* Level 2 *Defined as nonremission Level 1

  5. Which treatments to test as second-step treatments? Efficacy studies have identified a number of different types of treatments that were effective in treating depression. After much discussion, debate, arguing, etc., seven treatments were selected for the Level 2: Level 2 Treatment Options Venlafaxin Sertraline Bupropion Cognitive Therapy Citalopram + Cognitive Therapy Citalopram + Bupropion Citalopram + Buspirone Randomization

  6. Randomize CIT +CT CIT +BUP-SR CIT +BUS SER BUP-SR VEN-XR CT Level 2 SwitchOptions AugmentationOptions

  7. Randomize VEN-XR BUP-SR Switch Level 2A

  8. Randomize L-2 Tx +Li L-2 Tx +THY MRT NTP Switch Augmentation Level 3

  9. Randomize TCP VEN-XR + MRT Switch Level 4

  10. How do we randomly assign a subject to one of the seven treatments in Level 2?

  11. Complete Randomization • Patient and clinician must be willing to accept all treatments offered • Advantage: simple approach • Disadvantage: • Subjects and clinicians may have treatment preferences and would not be willing to be randomly assigned to a number of treatments. • Because of this, those that are willing to accept all the treatment assignments do not represent a general population

  12. Clinician’s Choice • Define broad classifications and let the clinician choose the treatment within the class. • Patient and clinician must be willing to accept at least one treatment option within each class • Advantages: • Clinician, in theory, knows something about the patient so the choice of the treatment can be optimized • More generalizable

  13. Clinician’s Choice • Disadvantages: • Because the assignment of treatment options within a class are not randomly assigned, the “best” treatment option within a class cannot be identified

  14. The Equipoise-Stratified Design • Equipoise-Stratified (Lavori et al., 2000) • What is equipoise? • To be in equipoise with respect to a set of prospective treatment options is to regard them as approximately equal in terms of the likelihood of success. • To consider a patient for entry into a study, the clinician and patient must be in equipoise with respect to the treatment options.

  15. Example Application of ESRD • Conducting a study to compare four treatments (TX1, TX2, TX3, TX4). • The treatment options can be combined into two treatment strategies • Strategy A (TX1, TX2) • Strategy B (TX3, TX4) • This would create the following acceptability strata

  16. Example Application of ESRD Acceptability of Treatment Options

  17. Example Application of ESRD Acceptability of Treatment Options

  18. Example Application of ESRD • For the equipoise-stratified design, subjects from acceptability strata 1 through 11 are included in the study • For the completely randomized design, only those from acceptability stratum 1 are included in the study • For the clinician’s choice design, the comparison of treatments cannot be made.

  19. Example Application of ESRD • Want to do identify best treatment • Conduct all pairwise treatment comparisons • TX1 vs. TX2, TX1 vs. TX3, TX1 vs. TX4, TX2 vs. TX3, TX2 vs. TX4, TX3 vs. TX4 • For a given comparison (e.g., TX1 vs. TX2), compare rate out binary outcome across two treatments, stratified by acceptability stratum (Srata 1, 2, 3 and 6). • Use Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test to combine comparison across strata.

  20. Example Application of ESRD • Because conducting many pairwise tests, need to maintain the Type I error to be .05 • Use Bonferroni corrections, so each pairwise comparison is conducted at the .0083 (.05/6) level.

  21. The Equipoise-Stratified Design • Equipoise-Stratified • Advantages • Generalizable • Pairwise contrast can be built. For example, to compare A to B, can take subjects that selected either the ABC strata or the AB strata, and were randomly assigned to receive either treatment A or B. • Disadvantage: Complicated

  22. The Equipoise-Stratified Design • In the second-step treatments of STAR*D • Patients/clinicians considered four strategies • Medication switch • Medication augment • Cognitive Therapy switch • Cognitive Therapy augment • Could exclude any of these, as long as multiple treatments were still available. • Exclude medication augment, cognitive therapy switch, cognitive therapy augment - OK • Exclude medication switch, medication augment, cognitive therapy switch – not OK

  23. ESRD in STAR*D

  24. Randomize CIT +CT CIT +BUP-SR CIT +BUS SER BUP-SR VEN-XR CT ESRD in STAR*D Study Design: Level 2 SwitchOptions AugmentationOptions

  25. ESRD in STAR*DLevel 2 Approach • Goal: Identify most effective 2nd step treatment • Seven treatment options created too many strata • Create acceptability stratum pooling strategies • Must be willing to accept all medication switches • Must be willing to accept all medication augments • Creates four treatment strategy strata • Medication Switch • Medication Augment • Cognitive Therapy Switch • Cognitive Therapy Augment

  26. ESRD in STAR*DLevel 2 Approach • Analysis approach – step up procedure • Identify most effect medication switch • Identify most effect medication augment • Identify most effective treatment strategy • If a most effective medication switch or medication augment was identified, use those randomly assigned to that specific medication in the comparison across strategies. • If a most effective medication switch or medication augment was not identified, pool those randomly assigned to any treatment that strategy for the comparison across strategies.

  27. ESRD in STAR*D : Level 2 Expected Acceptability

  28. ESRD in STAR*D : Level 2 Observed & Expected Acceptability

  29. ESRD in STAR*D • Any treatment: 1.5% (21/1,438 ) • Cognitive Therapy: 25.6% (368/1,438) • Medication Switch: 55.8% (803/1,438) • Medication Augment: 48.4 (696/1,438)

More Related