Background: The definition of outcome in antidepressant treatment studies may be a crucial factor influencing the relationship between possible treatment variables and treatment response. We therefore wanted to investigate possible relationships between baseline severity of depression and anxiety, and different definitions of outcome among outpatients with major depressive disorder undergoing antidepressant treatment. Methods: Two hundred and forty-eight patients diagnosed with major depression with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Diagnosis – Patient Edition were treated with fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. Patients were evaluated both pretreatment and posttreatment with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Ham-D-17), the Clinical Global Impressions Scales for Severity (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I). We chose four continuous definitions of response using a linear regression method to analyze the relationship to baseline anxiety and depression. We used a logistic regression analysis for the relationship between seven categorical definitions of response and baseline severity of depression and anxiety. Results: Greater endpoint severity was significantly positively related to greater baseline severity of depression and anxiety. Lesser baseline severity of depression or anxiety predicted a greater degree of response on either the endpoint CGI-I score (with lower scores indicating greater improvement) or the percent change in HAM-D-17 score (with higher percent change indicating greater improvement). For all seven categorical definitions of response, lower baseline scores were significantly related to the probability of being a responder. Conclusions: These findings support the impression that how outcome is defined affects the strength and direction of observed relationships with predictive variables. Methodological implications are discussed.

Keywords:
Depression, Fluoxetine
1.
Bielski R, Friedel R: Prediction of tricyclic antidepressant response: A critical review. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976;33:1479–1489.
2.
Prusoff BA, Weissman MM, Klerman GL, Rousanville BJ: Research diagnostic criteria subtypes of depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1980;37:796–801.
3.
Coppen A, Millin P, Harwood J, Wood K: Does the dexamethasone suppression test predict antidepressant treatment success? Br J Psychiatry 1985;146:294–296.
4.
Scott J, Eccleston D: Prediction, treatment, and prognosis of chronic primary major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1991;6(suppl 1):41–49.
5.
Joyce PR, Paykel ES: Predictors of drug response in depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989;46:89–99.
6.
Association AP: The dexamethasone suppression test: An overview of its current status in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 1987;144:1253–1262.
7.
Heiligenstein JH, Tollefson GD, Faries DE: Response patterns of depressed outpatients with and without melancholia: A double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine versus placebo. J Affect Disord 1994;30:163–173.
8.
Nelson JC, Mazure CM, Jatlow PI: Does melancholia predict response in major depression? J Affect Disord 1990;18:157–165.
9.
Peselow ED, Sanfilipo MP, Defiglia C, Fieve RR: Melancholia/endogenous depression and response to somatic treatment and placebo. Am J Psychiatry 1992;149:1324–1334.
10.
Davidson J, Turnbull C: Isocarboxazid: Efficacy and tolerance. J Affect Disord 1983;6:183–189.
11.
Katz MM, Koslow SH, Maas JW, Frazer A, Bowden CL, Casper R, Croughan J, Kocsis J, Redmond E: The timing, specificity and clinical prediction of tricyclic drug effects in depression. Psychol Med 1987;17:297–309.
12.
Hoencamp E, Haffmans PMJ, Duivenvoorden H, Knegtering H, Dijken WA: Predictors of (non-)response in depressed outpatients treated with a three-phase sequential medication strategy. J Affect Disord 1994;31:235–246.
13.
Kocsis JH: Predicting treatment response in clinical psychopharmacology. Psychopharmacol Bull 1990;261:49–53.
14.
Prien RF, Carpenter LL, Kupfer DJ: The definition and operational criteria for treatment outcome of major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48:796–800.
15.
Hamilton M: A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960;23:56–62.
16.
Joffe R, Bagby M, Levitt A: Anxious and nonanxious depression. Am J Psychiatry 1993;150:1257–1258.
17.
Fava M, Uebelacker LA, Alpert JE, Nierenberg AA, Pava JA, Rosenbaum JF: Major depressive subtypes and treatment response. Biol Psychiatry 1997;42:568–576.
18.
Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Gibbon M, First MB: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R – Patient Edition (SCID-P, 9/1/89 version). New York, Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1989.
19.
Guy W: ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. DHEW Publ No (ADM) 76-338. Rockville, NIMH, 1976.
20.
Tedlow JR, Fava M, Uebelacker LA, Alpert JA, Nierenberg AA, Rosenbaum JF: Are study dropouts different from completers? Biol Psychiatry 1996;40:668–670.
21.
Kellner RA: Symptom Questionnaire. J Clin Psychiatry 1987;48:268–274.
22.
Laird NM: Estimating rates of change in clinical studies; in Fava M, Rosenbaum JF (eds): Research Designs and Methods in Psychiatry. New York, Elsevier, 1992, vol 9, pp 185–194.
23.
Angst J, Delini-Stula A, Stabl M, Stassen HH: Is a cut-off score a suitable measure of treatment outcome in short-term trials in depression? A methodological meta-analysis. Hum Psychopharmacol 1993;8:311–317.
24.
Coryell W, Zimmerman M: Outcome following ECT for primary unipolar depression: A test of newly proposed predictors. Am J Psychiatry 1984;141:862–867.
25.
Yonkers KA, Gullion C, Williams A, Novak K, Rush AJ: Paroxetine as a treatment for premenstrual dysphoric disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1996;16:3–8.
26.
Fava GA: The concept of recovery in affective disorders. Psychother Psychosom 1996;65:2–13.
27.
Ryff CD, Singer B: Psychological well-being. Psychother Psychosom 1996;65:14–23.
28.
Bech P, Gudex C, Staehr Johansen K: The WHO (ten) well-being index. Psychother Psychosom 1996;65:183–190.
1998
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.