Site versus centralized raters in a clinical depression trial

Impact on patient selection and placebo response

Kenneth A. Kobak, Andrew Leuchter, David DeBrota, Nina Engelhardt, J. B W Williams, Ian A. Cook, Andrew C. Leon, Jonathan E. Alpert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of centralized raters who are remotely linked to sites and interview patients via videoconferencing or teleconferencing has been suggested as a way to improve interrater reliability and interview quality. This study compared the effect of site-based and centralized ratings on patient selection and placebo response in subjects with major depressive disorder. Subjects in a 2-center placebo and active comparator controlled depression trial were interviewed twice at each of 3 time points: baseline, 1-week postbaseline, and end point-once by the site rater and once remotely via videoconference by a centralized rater. Raters were blind to each others' scores. A site-based score of greater than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) was required for study entry. When examining all subjects entering the study, site-based raters' HDRS-17 scores were significantly higher than centralized raters' at baseline and postbaseline but not at end point. At baseline, 35% of subjects given an HDRS-17 total score of greater than 17 by a site rater were given an HDRS total score of lower than 17 by a centralized rater and would have been ineligible to enter the study if the centralized rater's score was used to determine study entry. The mean placebo change for site raters (7.52) was significantly greater than the mean placebo change for centralized raters (3.18, P < 0.001). Twentyeight percent were placebo responders (>50% reduction in HDRS) based on site ratings versus 14% for central ratings (P < 0.001). When examining data only from those subjects whom site and centralized raters agreed were eligible for the study, there was no significant difference in the HDRS-17 scores. Findings suggest that the use of centralized raters could significantly change the study sample in a major depressive disorder trial and lead to significantly less change in mood ratings among those randomized to placebo.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-197
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Selection
Placebos
Clinical Trials
Depression
Videoconferencing
Major Depressive Disorder
Interviews

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Depressive disorder
  • Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
  • Methods
  • Outcomes assessments
  • Patient
  • Placebo effect
  • Randomized

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Site versus centralized raters in a clinical depression trial : Impact on patient selection and placebo response. / Kobak, Kenneth A.; Leuchter, Andrew; DeBrota, David; Engelhardt, Nina; Williams, J. B W; Cook, Ian A.; Leon, Andrew C.; Alpert, Jonathan E.

In: Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Vol. 30, No. 2, 04.2010, p. 193-197.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kobak, Kenneth A. ; Leuchter, Andrew ; DeBrota, David ; Engelhardt, Nina ; Williams, J. B W ; Cook, Ian A. ; Leon, Andrew C. ; Alpert, Jonathan E. / Site versus centralized raters in a clinical depression trial : Impact on patient selection and placebo response. In: Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2010 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 193-197.
@article{90a4c64f8175487ca56110b94f78b92d,
title = "Site versus centralized raters in a clinical depression trial: Impact on patient selection and placebo response",
abstract = "The use of centralized raters who are remotely linked to sites and interview patients via videoconferencing or teleconferencing has been suggested as a way to improve interrater reliability and interview quality. This study compared the effect of site-based and centralized ratings on patient selection and placebo response in subjects with major depressive disorder. Subjects in a 2-center placebo and active comparator controlled depression trial were interviewed twice at each of 3 time points: baseline, 1-week postbaseline, and end point-once by the site rater and once remotely via videoconference by a centralized rater. Raters were blind to each others' scores. A site-based score of greater than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) was required for study entry. When examining all subjects entering the study, site-based raters' HDRS-17 scores were significantly higher than centralized raters' at baseline and postbaseline but not at end point. At baseline, 35{\%} of subjects given an HDRS-17 total score of greater than 17 by a site rater were given an HDRS total score of lower than 17 by a centralized rater and would have been ineligible to enter the study if the centralized rater's score was used to determine study entry. The mean placebo change for site raters (7.52) was significantly greater than the mean placebo change for centralized raters (3.18, P < 0.001). Twentyeight percent were placebo responders (>50{\%} reduction in HDRS) based on site ratings versus 14{\%} for central ratings (P < 0.001). When examining data only from those subjects whom site and centralized raters agreed were eligible for the study, there was no significant difference in the HDRS-17 scores. Findings suggest that the use of centralized raters could significantly change the study sample in a major depressive disorder trial and lead to significantly less change in mood ratings among those randomized to placebo.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Depressive disorder, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Methods, Outcomes assessments, Patient, Placebo effect, Randomized",
author = "Kobak, {Kenneth A.} and Andrew Leuchter and David DeBrota and Nina Engelhardt and Williams, {J. B W} and Cook, {Ian A.} and Leon, {Andrew C.} and Alpert, {Jonathan E.}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181d20912",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "193--197",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology",
issn = "0271-0749",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Site versus centralized raters in a clinical depression trial

T2 - Impact on patient selection and placebo response

AU - Kobak, Kenneth A.

AU - Leuchter, Andrew

AU - DeBrota, David

AU - Engelhardt, Nina

AU - Williams, J. B W

AU - Cook, Ian A.

AU - Leon, Andrew C.

AU - Alpert, Jonathan E.

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - The use of centralized raters who are remotely linked to sites and interview patients via videoconferencing or teleconferencing has been suggested as a way to improve interrater reliability and interview quality. This study compared the effect of site-based and centralized ratings on patient selection and placebo response in subjects with major depressive disorder. Subjects in a 2-center placebo and active comparator controlled depression trial were interviewed twice at each of 3 time points: baseline, 1-week postbaseline, and end point-once by the site rater and once remotely via videoconference by a centralized rater. Raters were blind to each others' scores. A site-based score of greater than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) was required for study entry. When examining all subjects entering the study, site-based raters' HDRS-17 scores were significantly higher than centralized raters' at baseline and postbaseline but not at end point. At baseline, 35% of subjects given an HDRS-17 total score of greater than 17 by a site rater were given an HDRS total score of lower than 17 by a centralized rater and would have been ineligible to enter the study if the centralized rater's score was used to determine study entry. The mean placebo change for site raters (7.52) was significantly greater than the mean placebo change for centralized raters (3.18, P < 0.001). Twentyeight percent were placebo responders (>50% reduction in HDRS) based on site ratings versus 14% for central ratings (P < 0.001). When examining data only from those subjects whom site and centralized raters agreed were eligible for the study, there was no significant difference in the HDRS-17 scores. Findings suggest that the use of centralized raters could significantly change the study sample in a major depressive disorder trial and lead to significantly less change in mood ratings among those randomized to placebo.

AB - The use of centralized raters who are remotely linked to sites and interview patients via videoconferencing or teleconferencing has been suggested as a way to improve interrater reliability and interview quality. This study compared the effect of site-based and centralized ratings on patient selection and placebo response in subjects with major depressive disorder. Subjects in a 2-center placebo and active comparator controlled depression trial were interviewed twice at each of 3 time points: baseline, 1-week postbaseline, and end point-once by the site rater and once remotely via videoconference by a centralized rater. Raters were blind to each others' scores. A site-based score of greater than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) was required for study entry. When examining all subjects entering the study, site-based raters' HDRS-17 scores were significantly higher than centralized raters' at baseline and postbaseline but not at end point. At baseline, 35% of subjects given an HDRS-17 total score of greater than 17 by a site rater were given an HDRS total score of lower than 17 by a centralized rater and would have been ineligible to enter the study if the centralized rater's score was used to determine study entry. The mean placebo change for site raters (7.52) was significantly greater than the mean placebo change for centralized raters (3.18, P < 0.001). Twentyeight percent were placebo responders (>50% reduction in HDRS) based on site ratings versus 14% for central ratings (P < 0.001). When examining data only from those subjects whom site and centralized raters agreed were eligible for the study, there was no significant difference in the HDRS-17 scores. Findings suggest that the use of centralized raters could significantly change the study sample in a major depressive disorder trial and lead to significantly less change in mood ratings among those randomized to placebo.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Depressive disorder

KW - Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

KW - Methods

KW - Outcomes assessments

KW - Patient

KW - Placebo effect

KW - Randomized

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952185894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952185894&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181d20912

DO - 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181d20912

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 193

EP - 197

JO - Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

JF - Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

SN - 0271-0749

IS - 2

ER -