1 / 81

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression)

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression). Ira Lesser, M.D. Chair, Department of Psychiatry Harbor-UCLA Medical Center Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. DISCLOSURES. Grant support

constance-kim
Download Presentation

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression)

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. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM STAR*D(Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) Ira Lesser, M.D. Chair, Department of Psychiatry Harbor-UCLA Medical Center Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

  2. DISCLOSURES • Grant support • National Institute for Mental Health • Bristol-Myers Squibb • Forest Pharmaceuticals • Aspect Medical Systems

  3. Disclosures • None of my slides and/or handouts contain any advertising, trade names or product-group messages. Any treatment recommendations I make will be based on clinical evidence or guidelines. Ira Lesser, M.D. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

  4. Focus of Presentation • Discuss consequences of untreated/partially treated depression • Discuss treatment resistant depression • Discuss research approaches to study this, e.g. efficacy vs effectiveness trials • Discuss the STAR*D trial and methodology • Discuss the STAR*D results and implications for clinical practice

  5. Health Burden Of Depression • MDD is common and recurrent and can be disabling • Lifetime prevalence ~ 10-15% • Women are affected more than men • Over 2/3 of people have recurrences • Depressed adults have twice the annual health care costs as non-depressed • World-wide is the 4th most disabling medical condition, climbing to 2nd by 2020

  6. Remission >75% Response 50% - 74% Partial Response 25% - 49% Nonresponse <25% Definitions of Response and Remission % Reduction in Score

  7. Nonremission is Common • 35–45% remission • 10–20% response with residual symptoms • 15% partial response • 25% nonresponse • 7–15% intolerant Depression in Primary Care, Vol. 2. Treatment of Major Depression. Rockville, MD: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, AHCPR Publication No. 93-0550, 1993.

  8. Staging Treatment Resistance Adapted from: Thase ME, Rush AJ. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(suppl 5):5Souery D et al. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 1999;9:83

  9. Pharmacological Options After Failure of First Antidepressant • Optimize dose and address adherence • Change to another antidepressant • Same class • Different class • Add a second antidepressant • Add a non-antidepressant • Lithium or other mood stabilizer • Thyroid hormone • Psychostimulant • Atypical antipsychotic

  10. EFFICACY Aims for pure populations Assesess safety and efficacy Co-morbid conditions excluded Rates for MDD response are about 50%, 20-30% remission EFFECTIVENESS Looks for “real world” subjects Assesess effectivenenss Co-morbid conditions are OK Rates for MDD response are low Efficacy vs Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Trials

  11. The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) Trial Rationale and Design(www.star-d.org) A. John Rush, M.D.University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallas, Texas

  12. Importance of STAR*D • The largest clinical trial of depression ever • Conducted in primary care as well as psychiatric settings • Few exclusion criteria, making it “real world” • Included large numbers of minority patients • Included cognitive therapy • Combined randomization and patient choice • The outcome was “remission” rather than “response”

  13. Why Remission Was the End Point Remitters have less disability, better role function, life satisfaction, and less recurrences

  14. Consequences of Nonremission • Poor function (e.g., work, family) • Poor prognosis (e.g., increased recurrence) • Psychiatric or general medical complications (e.g., substance abuse) • Health service utilization • Death from: • Medical comorbidities • Suicide • Treatment resistance

  15. Median Weeks to Relapse* Following Response 250 231 200 150 Weeks 100 68 50 0 Remission (n = 155) Improved Without Remission (n = 82 ) *Relapse defined as onset of new major depressive episode. Adapted from Judd LL et al. J Affect Disord. 1998;50:97-108.

  16. STAR*D Overview - I • Duration: 7 years (October 1999 - September 2006) • Funding: National Institute of Mental Health • National Coordinating Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas • Data Coordinating Center, Pittsburgh

  17. STAR*D Overview - II • 14 Regional Centers • 41 Clinical Sites • 18 Primary Care Settings • 23 Psychiatric Care Settings

  18. Overall Aim of STAR*D • Define preferred treatments for patients who failed one SSRI • All subjects begin on citalopram • Doses are maximized • Remitters enter follow-up • If no remission, go to level 2 and subsequent levels

  19. Participants • Major depressive disorder • Nonpsychotic • Representative primary and specialty care practices (nonacademic) • Self-declared patients

  20. Inclusion Criteria • Clinician deems antidepressant medication indicated. • 18-75 years of age. • Baseline HRSD17 14. • Most concurrent Axis I, II, III disorders allowed.

  21. Multiple Research Outcomes • Symptoms • Function • Side effect burden • Patient and clinician satisfaction • Utilization and costs of health care services

  22. Clinical Procedures • Open treatment with randomization • Symptoms/side effects measured at each clinical visit • Clinicians guided by algorithms/supervision • Dose adjustments”mandatory” to achieve remission (QIDS-C16) • Education for all patients

  23. Level 1 Findings

  24. Demographic Baseline Features(N=2876) Age (yrs.) 40.8 (13.0) % Female 63.7 Race % White 75.8 % African-American 17.6 % Others 6.6 % Latino 13.0 Age Groups 18-30 years 26.2 31-50 years 48.0 51+ years 25.8 Education (yrs.) 13.4 (3.2) Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  25. Demographic Baseline Features(N=2876) Education % < High School 12.6 High School < College 62.2 > College 25.2 Insurance Private 51.1 Public 14.2 None 34.7 % Primary Care 37.9 Mean (SD) Household Income ($ mo.) 2358 (3030) Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  26. Social Baseline Features(N=2876) Marital Status % Never Married 28.7 Married 41.7 Divorced 26.5 Widowed 3.1 Employment Status Employed 56.2 Unemployed 38.2 Retired 5.6 Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  27. Clinical Baseline Features(N=2876) % Recurrent Depression 75.7 Onset age < 18 yrs. 37.8 Positive Family History of Depression 55.5 History of Attempted Suicide 17.9 Current MDE > 24 months 25.3 Anxious Depression 53.2 Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  28. Clinical Baseline Features(N=2876) Mean (SD) HRSD17 (ROA) 21.8 (5.2) QIDS-SR16 16.2 (4.0) Age at First Onset (yrs.) 25.3 (14.4) # of MDEs 6.0 (11.4) Length of Current MDE (mos.) 24.6 (51.7) Length of Illness (yrs.) 15.5 (13.2) Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  29. Majority Had Concurrent Axis I Disorders at Baseline(N=2876) % # Concurrent Axis I Disorders Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  30. Concurrent Baseline Axis I Disordersa(N=2876) % Generalized Anxiety Dis. 23.6 Obsessive Compulsive Dis. 14.3 Panic Disorder 13.1 Social Phobia 31.3 Posttraumatic Stress Dis. 20.6 Agoraphobia 11.8 Alcohol Abuse/Dependence 12.1 Drug Abuse/Dependence 7.4 Somatoform Dis. 2.4 Hypochondriasis 4.4 Bulimia 13.0 a Defined by PDSQ. Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  31. Treatment and Symptom Outcomes (n=2876) • Response (without remission) • 50% decrease in baseline QIDS-SR16 • Remission • HAMD17< 7 • QIDS-SR16< 5 • Citalopram • Dose (at level exit): 41.8 mg (S.D. 16.8) • Duration: 10.0 weeks (S.D. 4.2) Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:28-40

  32. Treatment Outcome: Level 1(N=2876) HAMD-17=17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression QIDS-SR-16=16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology – Self-Report Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:28-40

  33. Similar Outcomes in Primary and Psychiatric Care Settings(N=2876) % Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:28-40

  34. Remission vs. Non-remission • Remitters stayed in treatment longer (12 vs. 9.3 weeks) • Remitters stayed on final dose longer (6.6 vs. 4.4 weeks) • Remitters had less side effect burden

  35. Of Ultimate Remitters,1/2 Remitted by Week 6 52.9% n=2,876 Remission= QIDS-SR16< 5 Trivedi et al., Am J Psychiatry, 163(1):28-40, 2006

  36. Female gender Being employed Caucasian (vs. African-American) Being married or co-habitating Being more educated Having private insurance Having less medical problems Having less psychiatric co-morbidities Lower baseline severity Better baseline physical and mental function Greater life satisfaction Shorter current episode Remission vs. Non-Remission: Significant Baseline Differences

  37. Summary: Level 1 • Over one-third of patients have been depressed for >2 years and 2/3 have concurrent GMCs • About 1/3 will remit • Response occurs in ~1/2 AFTER 6 weeks • Measurement Based Care is feasible and works • Studies of remission require longer study periods than 8 weeks • When protocol-based care is given, results are equivalent in primary and specialty care

  38. Level 2 Findings

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

  40. Acceptability of Treatment Options • 41% chose only to have medication switch • 30% chose only to have medication augmentation • 11% chose to have any augmentation (meds or CBT) • 7% chose to have any switch (meds or CBT) • 1.4% chose to have any available option

  41. Level 2 Medication Switch

  42. Treatment Outcomes: Level 2 Switch(% remission) (N-239) (N = 238) (N = 250) Rush et al., N Engl J Med2006;354(12):1231-42

  43. Level 2 Medication Augmentation

  44. Treatment Outcomes: Level 2 Augmentation(% remission) (N = 279) (N = 286) Trivedi et al., N Engl J Med2006;354(12):1243-52

  45. Summary: Level 2 (switch) • Mean doses/day: bupropion=282.7mg; sertraline=135mg; venlafaxine=193mg • ~ 25% achieve remission after switching to another antidepressant • No significant differences among various antidepressants in achieving remission: changing class of medication did not make a difference • Intolerance to citalopram did not predict intolerance to sertraline • Perhaps venlafaxine dose too low

  46. Summary: Level 2 (augment) • Mean doses/day: bupropion=267mg; buspirone=41mg • ~ 30% achieve remission augmenting citalopram, with no absolute difference between treatments • Citalopram plus bupropion led to greater degree of improvement across subjects • Bupropion was better tolerated

  47. Level 2 Cognitive Therapy Findings

  48. Cognitive Therapy Arm • Certification process for CT therapists • Session twice weekly for weeks 1-4, then once weekly for remaining 8 weeks (16 visits) • If there was response without remission, could offer additional 8 sessions • 469/1439 (26%) of those eligible chose CT as a possible option • 65 switched to CT; 36 augmented with CT

  49. Treatment Outcomes (% Remission)(L-2 CT vs. Med Switch) (N = 36) (N = 86) Thase et al., in preparation

More Related