These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Predicting response to fluoxetine in geriatric patients with major depression.
    Author: Koran LM, Hamilton SH, Hertzman M, Meyers BS, Halaris AE, Tollefson GD, Downs JM, Folks DG, Jeste DV, Lazarus LW.
    Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol; 1995 Dec; 15(6):421-7. PubMed ID: 8748431.
    Abstract:
    No consensus exists regarding whether early response to an antidepressant strongly predicts a good outcome, what is the criterion for early response, or when to measure it. We hypothesized that early response (> or = 20% decrease in HAM-d21) after any of weeks 1, 2, or 3 of fluoxetine treatment of major depression in geriatric outpatients would predict a favorable outcome by week 6 or an earlier endpoint accurately enough for clinical use. We also hypothesized that the week 1, 2, and 3 percent changes in 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21) would predict the percent change at week 6 (or endpoint) accurately enough for clinical use. We enrolled 671 elderly outpatients with unipolar DSM-III-R major depression in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine, 20 mg/day. For analysis, fluoxetine-treated patients were randomly divided into a development set (N = 154) for a preliminary test of our criteria and a validation set (N = 181) to validate the development data set's results. Early responders at weeks 1, 2, and 3 were statistically significantly more likely to experience marked improvement or remission than those lacking early response. However, at week 3, this criterion correctly classified only about three-fourths of patients with regard to marked improvement and only about two-thirds with regard to remission. Moreover, about one-third of patients predicted to experience marked improvement and about three-fifths of those predicted to remit did not. The continuous variable, percent change in HAM-D21, did not produce predictive results of any greater clinical utility. We believe that the sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate, false-negative rate, and kappa of outcome predictions all should be reported in future studies. Without a full set of descriptive statistics, clinicians can be misled by statistically significant results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]