Huibers Marcus J H, Cohen Zachary D, Lemmens Lotte H J M, Arntz Arnoud, Peeters Frenk P M L, Cuijpers Pim, DeRubeis Robert J
Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 10;10(11):e0140771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140771. eCollection 2015.
Although psychotherapies for depression produce equivalent outcomes, individual patients respond differently to different therapies. Predictors of outcome have been identified in the context of randomized trials, but this information has not been used to predict which treatment works best for the depressed individual. In this paper, we aim to replicate a recently developed treatment selection method, using data from an RCT comparing the effects of cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT).
134 depressed patients completed the pre- and post-treatment BDI-II assessment. First, we identified baseline predictors and moderators. Second, individual treatment recommendations were generated by combining the identified predictors and moderators in an algorithm that produces the Personalized Advantage Index (PAI), a measure of the predicted advantage in one therapy compared to the other, using standard regression analyses and the leave-one-out cross-validation approach.
We found five predictors (gender, employment status, anxiety, personality disorder and quality of life) and six moderators (somatic complaints, cognitive problems, paranoid symptoms, interpersonal self-sacrificing, attributional style and number of life events) of treatment outcome. The mean average PAI value was 8.9 BDI points, and 63% of the sample was predicted to have a clinically meaningful advantage in one of the therapies. Those who were randomized to their predicted optimal treatment (either CT or IPT) had an observed mean end-BDI of 11.8, while those who received their predicted non-optimal treatment had an end-BDI of 17.8 (effect size for the difference = 0.51).
Depressed patients who were randomized to their predicted optimal treatment fared much better than those randomized to their predicted non-optimal treatment. The PAI provides a great opportunity for formal decision-making to improve individual patient outcomes in depression. Although the utility of the PAI approach will need to be evaluated in prospective research, this study promotes the development of a treatment selection approach that can be used in regular mental health care, advancing the goals of personalized medicine.
尽管治疗抑郁症的心理疗法会产生相同的效果,但个体患者对不同疗法的反应却有所不同。在随机试验的背景下已经确定了治疗结果的预测因素,但这些信息尚未用于预测哪种治疗方法对抑郁症患者最有效。在本文中,我们旨在使用一项比较认知疗法(CT)和人际心理治疗(IPT)效果的随机对照试验(RCT)数据,复制一种最近开发的治疗选择方法。
134名抑郁症患者完成了治疗前和治疗后的贝克抑郁量表第二版(BDI-II)评估。首先,我们确定了基线预测因素和调节因素。其次,通过在一种算法中结合所确定的预测因素和调节因素来生成个体治疗建议,该算法使用标准回归分析和留一法交叉验证方法生成个性化优势指数(PAI),这是一种衡量一种疗法相对于另一种疗法的预测优势的指标。
我们发现了治疗结果的五个预测因素(性别、就业状况、焦虑、人格障碍和生活质量)和六个调节因素(躯体主诉、认知问题、偏执症状、人际自我牺牲、归因方式和生活事件数量)。PAI的平均分值为8.9分(BDI),63%的样本预计在其中一种疗法中具有临床意义上的优势。那些被随机分配到其预测的最佳治疗方法(CT或IPT)的患者,观察到的最终BDI平均分为11.8,而那些接受其预测的非最佳治疗方法的患者最终BDI分为17.8(差异效应量=0.51)。
被随机分配到其预测的最佳治疗方法的抑郁症患者比被随机分配到其预测的非最佳治疗方法的患者表现要好得多。PAI为改善抑郁症患者个体治疗结果的正式决策提供了一个很好的机会。尽管PAI方法的效用需要在前瞻性研究中进行评估,但这项研究推动了一种可用于常规精神卫生保健的治疗选择方法的发展,推进了个性化医疗的目标。