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.
Adult
Antidepressive Agents
/ therapeutic use
Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation
/ therapeutic use
Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic
/ therapeutic use
Citalopram
/ therapeutic use
Depression
/ diagnosis
Female
Humans
Male
Nortriptyline
/ therapeutic use
Remission Induction
/ methods
Severity of Illness Index
Treatment Outcome
Depression
Dose response
Instrumental variables
Survival analysis
Threshold regression
Time to remission
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jan 2020
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
10Subventions
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