Estimating dose-response for time to remission with instrumental variable adjustment: the obscuring effects of drug titration in Genome Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression Trial (GENDEP): clinical trial data.


Journal

Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Jan 2020
Historique:
received: 24 10 2018
accepted: 22 10 2019
entrez: 5 1 2020
pubmed: 5 1 2020
medline: 13 11 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Threshold regression, in which time to remission is modelled as a stochastic drift towards a boundary, is an alternative to the proportional hazards survival model and has a clear conceptual mechanism for examining the effects of drug dose. However, for both threshold regression and proportional hazard models, when dose titration occurs during treatment, the estimated causal effect of dose can be biased by confounding. An instrumental variable analysis can be used to minimise such bias. Weekly antidepressant dose was measured in 380 men and women with major depression treated with escitalopram or nortriptyline for 12 weeks as part of the Genome Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression (GENDEP) study. The averaged dose relative to maximum prescribing dose was calculated from the 12 trial weeks and tested for association with time to depression remission. We combined the instrumental variable approach, utilising randomised treatment as an instrument, with threshold regression and proportional hazard survival models. The threshold model was constructed with two linear predictors. In the naïve models, averaged daily dose was not associated with reduced time to remission. By contrast, the instrumental variable analyses showed a clear and significant relationship between increased dose and faster time to remission, threshold regression (velocity estimate: 0.878, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.152-1.603) and proportional hazards (log hazards ratio: 3.012, 95% CI: 0.086-5.938). We demonstrate, using the GENDEP trial, the benefits of these analyses to estimate causal parameters rather than those that estimate associations. The results for the trial dataset show the link between antidepressant dose and time to depression remission. The threshold regression model more clearly distinguishes the factors associated with initial severity from those influencing treatment effect. Additionally, applying the instrumental variable estimator provides a more plausible causal estimate of drug dose on treatment effect. This validity of these results is subject to meeting the assumptions of instrumental variable analyses. EudraCT, 2004-001723-38; ISRCTN, 03693000. Registered on 27 September 2007.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Threshold regression, in which time to remission is modelled as a stochastic drift towards a boundary, is an alternative to the proportional hazards survival model and has a clear conceptual mechanism for examining the effects of drug dose. However, for both threshold regression and proportional hazard models, when dose titration occurs during treatment, the estimated causal effect of dose can be biased by confounding. An instrumental variable analysis can be used to minimise such bias.
METHOD METHODS
Weekly antidepressant dose was measured in 380 men and women with major depression treated with escitalopram or nortriptyline for 12 weeks as part of the Genome Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression (GENDEP) study. The averaged dose relative to maximum prescribing dose was calculated from the 12 trial weeks and tested for association with time to depression remission. We combined the instrumental variable approach, utilising randomised treatment as an instrument, with threshold regression and proportional hazard survival models.
RESULTS RESULTS
The threshold model was constructed with two linear predictors. In the naïve models, averaged daily dose was not associated with reduced time to remission. By contrast, the instrumental variable analyses showed a clear and significant relationship between increased dose and faster time to remission, threshold regression (velocity estimate: 0.878, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.152-1.603) and proportional hazards (log hazards ratio: 3.012, 95% CI: 0.086-5.938).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrate, using the GENDEP trial, the benefits of these analyses to estimate causal parameters rather than those that estimate associations. The results for the trial dataset show the link between antidepressant dose and time to depression remission. The threshold regression model more clearly distinguishes the factors associated with initial severity from those influencing treatment effect. Additionally, applying the instrumental variable estimator provides a more plausible causal estimate of drug dose on treatment effect. This validity of these results is subject to meeting the assumptions of instrumental variable analyses.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
EudraCT, 2004-001723-38; ISRCTN, 03693000. Registered on 27 September 2007.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31900198
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3810-9
pii: 10.1186/s13063-019-3810-9
pmc: PMC6942263
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antidepressive Agents 0
Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation 0
Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic 0
Citalopram 0DHU5B8D6V
Nortriptyline BL03SY4LXB

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

10

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : DRF-2015-08-012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research (GB)
ID : DRF-2015-08-012

Références

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Jun;167(4):353-62
pubmed: 12719960
Stat Med. 1995 Apr 30;14(8):735-46
pubmed: 7644855
Can J Psychiatry. 2001 Jun;46 Suppl 1:38S-58S
pubmed: 11441771
Cell Mol Neurobiol. 1999 Aug;19(4):467-89
pubmed: 10379421
Lifetime Data Anal. 2010 Apr;16(2):196-214
pubmed: 19960249
Stat Med. 1991 Jan;10(1):45-52
pubmed: 2006355
Br J Psychiatry. 1979 Apr;134:382-9
pubmed: 444788
J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 22:29-34
pubmed: 10634353
Epidemiology. 2015 May;26(3):411-3
pubmed: 25835137
Epidemiology. 2006 Jul;17(4):360-72
pubmed: 16755261
Epidemiology. 2015 May;26(3):402-10
pubmed: 25692223
Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Mar;194(3):252-9
pubmed: 19252156
Epidemiology. 2016 May;27(3):356-9
pubmed: 26680297
Stat Methods Med Res. 2011 Jun;20(3):191-215
pubmed: 19036909
Epidemiology. 2010 Jan;21(1):13-5
pubmed: 20010207
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Int J Epidemiol. 2000 Dec;29(6):1102
pubmed: 11101554
J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64 Suppl 13:18-25
pubmed: 14552652
Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Dec;128(6):1185-97
pubmed: 3057878
J Health Econ. 2008 May;27(3):531-43
pubmed: 18192044

Auteurs

Jennifer Hellier (J)

Biostatistics and Health Informatics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. jennifer.hellier@kcl.ac.uk.

Richard Emsley (R)

Biostatistics and Health Informatics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.

Andrew Pickles (A)

Biostatistics and Health Informatics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH