What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression

Bradley N. Gaynes, Diane Warden, Madhukar H. Trivedi, Stephen R. Wisniewski, Maurizio Fava, A. John Rush

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The authors provide an overview of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org), a largescale practical clinical trial to determine which of several treatments are the most effective "next-steps" for patients with major depressive disorder whose symptoms do not remit or who cannot tolerate an initial treatment and, if needed, ensuing treatments. Entry criteria were broadly defined and inclusive, and patients were enrolled from psychiatric and primary care clinics. All participants began on citalopram and were managed by clinic physicians, who followed an algorithm-guided acute-phase treatment through five visits over 12 weeks. At the end of each sequence, patients whose depression had not fully remitted were eligible for subsequent randomized trials in a sequence of up to three clinical trials. In general, remission rates in the study clinics were lower than expected, suggesting the need for several steps to achieve remission for most patients. There was no clear medication "winner" for patients whose depression did not remit after one or more aggressive medication trials. Both switching and augmenting appeared to be reasonable options when an initial antidepressant treatment failed, although these two strategies could not be directly compared. Further, the likelihood of remission after two vigorous medication trials substantially decreased, and remission would likely require more complicated medication regimens for which the existing evidence base is quite thin. STAR*D demonstrated that inclusion of more real-world patients in clinical trials is both feasible and informative. Policy implications of the findings, as well as the study's limitations, are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1439-1445
Number of pages7
JournalPsychiatric Services
Volume60
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2009

Fingerprint

Pragmatic Clinical Trials
Depression
Therapeutics
Clinical Trials
Citalopram
Major Depressive Disorder
Antidepressive Agents
Psychiatry
Primary Health Care
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression. / Gaynes, Bradley N.; Warden, Diane; Trivedi, Madhukar H.; Wisniewski, Stephen R.; Fava, Maurizio; Rush, A. John.

In: Psychiatric Services, Vol. 60, No. 11, 11.2009, p. 1439-1445.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gaynes, Bradley N. ; Warden, Diane ; Trivedi, Madhukar H. ; Wisniewski, Stephen R. ; Fava, Maurizio ; Rush, A. John. / What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression. In: Psychiatric Services. 2009 ; Vol. 60, No. 11. pp. 1439-1445.
@article{294a7d368b474643917deb2d22c246b0,
title = "What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression",
abstract = "The authors provide an overview of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org), a largescale practical clinical trial to determine which of several treatments are the most effective {"}next-steps{"} for patients with major depressive disorder whose symptoms do not remit or who cannot tolerate an initial treatment and, if needed, ensuing treatments. Entry criteria were broadly defined and inclusive, and patients were enrolled from psychiatric and primary care clinics. All participants began on citalopram and were managed by clinic physicians, who followed an algorithm-guided acute-phase treatment through five visits over 12 weeks. At the end of each sequence, patients whose depression had not fully remitted were eligible for subsequent randomized trials in a sequence of up to three clinical trials. In general, remission rates in the study clinics were lower than expected, suggesting the need for several steps to achieve remission for most patients. There was no clear medication {"}winner{"} for patients whose depression did not remit after one or more aggressive medication trials. Both switching and augmenting appeared to be reasonable options when an initial antidepressant treatment failed, although these two strategies could not be directly compared. Further, the likelihood of remission after two vigorous medication trials substantially decreased, and remission would likely require more complicated medication regimens for which the existing evidence base is quite thin. STAR*D demonstrated that inclusion of more real-world patients in clinical trials is both feasible and informative. Policy implications of the findings, as well as the study's limitations, are discussed.",
author = "Gaynes, {Bradley N.} and Diane Warden and Trivedi, {Madhukar H.} and Wisniewski, {Stephen R.} and Maurizio Fava and Rush, {A. John}",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1176/appi.ps.60.11.1439",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "1439--1445",
journal = "Psychiatric Services",
issn = "1075-2730",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression

AU - Gaynes, Bradley N.

AU - Warden, Diane

AU - Trivedi, Madhukar H.

AU - Wisniewski, Stephen R.

AU - Fava, Maurizio

AU - Rush, A. John

PY - 2009/11

Y1 - 2009/11

N2 - The authors provide an overview of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org), a largescale practical clinical trial to determine which of several treatments are the most effective "next-steps" for patients with major depressive disorder whose symptoms do not remit or who cannot tolerate an initial treatment and, if needed, ensuing treatments. Entry criteria were broadly defined and inclusive, and patients were enrolled from psychiatric and primary care clinics. All participants began on citalopram and were managed by clinic physicians, who followed an algorithm-guided acute-phase treatment through five visits over 12 weeks. At the end of each sequence, patients whose depression had not fully remitted were eligible for subsequent randomized trials in a sequence of up to three clinical trials. In general, remission rates in the study clinics were lower than expected, suggesting the need for several steps to achieve remission for most patients. There was no clear medication "winner" for patients whose depression did not remit after one or more aggressive medication trials. Both switching and augmenting appeared to be reasonable options when an initial antidepressant treatment failed, although these two strategies could not be directly compared. Further, the likelihood of remission after two vigorous medication trials substantially decreased, and remission would likely require more complicated medication regimens for which the existing evidence base is quite thin. STAR*D demonstrated that inclusion of more real-world patients in clinical trials is both feasible and informative. Policy implications of the findings, as well as the study's limitations, are discussed.

AB - The authors provide an overview of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org), a largescale practical clinical trial to determine which of several treatments are the most effective "next-steps" for patients with major depressive disorder whose symptoms do not remit or who cannot tolerate an initial treatment and, if needed, ensuing treatments. Entry criteria were broadly defined and inclusive, and patients were enrolled from psychiatric and primary care clinics. All participants began on citalopram and were managed by clinic physicians, who followed an algorithm-guided acute-phase treatment through five visits over 12 weeks. At the end of each sequence, patients whose depression had not fully remitted were eligible for subsequent randomized trials in a sequence of up to three clinical trials. In general, remission rates in the study clinics were lower than expected, suggesting the need for several steps to achieve remission for most patients. There was no clear medication "winner" for patients whose depression did not remit after one or more aggressive medication trials. Both switching and augmenting appeared to be reasonable options when an initial antidepressant treatment failed, although these two strategies could not be directly compared. Further, the likelihood of remission after two vigorous medication trials substantially decreased, and remission would likely require more complicated medication regimens for which the existing evidence base is quite thin. STAR*D demonstrated that inclusion of more real-world patients in clinical trials is both feasible and informative. Policy implications of the findings, as well as the study's limitations, are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350763990&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350763990&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1176/appi.ps.60.11.1439

DO - 10.1176/appi.ps.60.11.1439

M3 - Article

C2 - 19880458

VL - 60

SP - 1439

EP - 1445

JO - Psychiatric Services

JF - Psychiatric Services

SN - 1075-2730

IS - 11

ER -