Antidepressant efficacy for depression in children and adolescents

Industry- and NIMH-funded studies

John T. Walkup*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Significant controversy surrounds the efficacy of the newer antidepressants for children and adolescents with depression. The controversy largely hinges on meta-analyses of studies that suggest that antidepressants are minimally effective, not effective, or equivalent to placebo. In this review, the author discusses several scientific and clinical complexities that are important to understand in reviewing the antidepressant literature: the strengths and weaknesses of meta-analyses; the scientific and regulatory context for the large number of antidepressant trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s; and the distinction between a negative trial, where the treatment does not demonstrate efficacy, and a failed trial, where methodological problems make it impossible to draw any conclusion about efficacy. It is the premise of this review that meta-analyses that include the large number of industrysponsored antidepressant trials distort the picture of antidepressant efficacy for teen depression. Industry-sponsored child and adolescent depression trials suffer from a number of implementation challenges and should be considered failed trials that are largely uninformative and not eligible to be included in efficacy meta-analyses. In contrast to the industry-sponsored trials, depression trials funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (N=2) are characterized by many methodological strengths, lower placebo response rates (30%235%), and meaningful betweengroup differences (25%230%) that support antidepressant efficacy. The NIMH-funded trials, taken together with the demonstrated efficacy of the serotonin reuptake inhibitors for childhood-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder and the anxiety disorders, suggest a broad and important role for antidepressant medications in pediatric internalizing conditions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)430-437
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Psychiatry
Volume174
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)
Antidepressive Agents
Industry
Meta-Analysis
Depression
Placebos
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors
Anxiety Disorders
Pediatrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{11e8cd45d5b84203938b1b29314ca8a3,
title = "Antidepressant efficacy for depression in children and adolescents: Industry- and NIMH-funded studies",
abstract = "Significant controversy surrounds the efficacy of the newer antidepressants for children and adolescents with depression. The controversy largely hinges on meta-analyses of studies that suggest that antidepressants are minimally effective, not effective, or equivalent to placebo. In this review, the author discusses several scientific and clinical complexities that are important to understand in reviewing the antidepressant literature: the strengths and weaknesses of meta-analyses; the scientific and regulatory context for the large number of antidepressant trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s; and the distinction between a negative trial, where the treatment does not demonstrate efficacy, and a failed trial, where methodological problems make it impossible to draw any conclusion about efficacy. It is the premise of this review that meta-analyses that include the large number of industrysponsored antidepressant trials distort the picture of antidepressant efficacy for teen depression. Industry-sponsored child and adolescent depression trials suffer from a number of implementation challenges and should be considered failed trials that are largely uninformative and not eligible to be included in efficacy meta-analyses. In contrast to the industry-sponsored trials, depression trials funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (N=2) are characterized by many methodological strengths, lower placebo response rates (30{\%}235{\%}), and meaningful betweengroup differences (25{\%}230{\%}) that support antidepressant efficacy. The NIMH-funded trials, taken together with the demonstrated efficacy of the serotonin reuptake inhibitors for childhood-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder and the anxiety disorders, suggest a broad and important role for antidepressant medications in pediatric internalizing conditions.",
author = "Walkup, {John T.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16091059",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "174",
pages = "430--437",
journal = "American Journal of Psychiatry",
issn = "0002-953X",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
number = "5",

}

Antidepressant efficacy for depression in children and adolescents : Industry- and NIMH-funded studies. / Walkup, John T.

In: American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 174, No. 5, 01.05.2017, p. 430-437.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antidepressant efficacy for depression in children and adolescents

T2 - Industry- and NIMH-funded studies

AU - Walkup, John T.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Significant controversy surrounds the efficacy of the newer antidepressants for children and adolescents with depression. The controversy largely hinges on meta-analyses of studies that suggest that antidepressants are minimally effective, not effective, or equivalent to placebo. In this review, the author discusses several scientific and clinical complexities that are important to understand in reviewing the antidepressant literature: the strengths and weaknesses of meta-analyses; the scientific and regulatory context for the large number of antidepressant trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s; and the distinction between a negative trial, where the treatment does not demonstrate efficacy, and a failed trial, where methodological problems make it impossible to draw any conclusion about efficacy. It is the premise of this review that meta-analyses that include the large number of industrysponsored antidepressant trials distort the picture of antidepressant efficacy for teen depression. Industry-sponsored child and adolescent depression trials suffer from a number of implementation challenges and should be considered failed trials that are largely uninformative and not eligible to be included in efficacy meta-analyses. In contrast to the industry-sponsored trials, depression trials funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (N=2) are characterized by many methodological strengths, lower placebo response rates (30%235%), and meaningful betweengroup differences (25%230%) that support antidepressant efficacy. The NIMH-funded trials, taken together with the demonstrated efficacy of the serotonin reuptake inhibitors for childhood-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder and the anxiety disorders, suggest a broad and important role for antidepressant medications in pediatric internalizing conditions.

AB - Significant controversy surrounds the efficacy of the newer antidepressants for children and adolescents with depression. The controversy largely hinges on meta-analyses of studies that suggest that antidepressants are minimally effective, not effective, or equivalent to placebo. In this review, the author discusses several scientific and clinical complexities that are important to understand in reviewing the antidepressant literature: the strengths and weaknesses of meta-analyses; the scientific and regulatory context for the large number of antidepressant trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s; and the distinction between a negative trial, where the treatment does not demonstrate efficacy, and a failed trial, where methodological problems make it impossible to draw any conclusion about efficacy. It is the premise of this review that meta-analyses that include the large number of industrysponsored antidepressant trials distort the picture of antidepressant efficacy for teen depression. Industry-sponsored child and adolescent depression trials suffer from a number of implementation challenges and should be considered failed trials that are largely uninformative and not eligible to be included in efficacy meta-analyses. In contrast to the industry-sponsored trials, depression trials funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (N=2) are characterized by many methodological strengths, lower placebo response rates (30%235%), and meaningful betweengroup differences (25%230%) that support antidepressant efficacy. The NIMH-funded trials, taken together with the demonstrated efficacy of the serotonin reuptake inhibitors for childhood-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder and the anxiety disorders, suggest a broad and important role for antidepressant medications in pediatric internalizing conditions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018389070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018389070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16091059

DO - 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16091059

M3 - Review article

VL - 174

SP - 430

EP - 437

JO - American Journal of Psychiatry

JF - American Journal of Psychiatry

SN - 0002-953X

IS - 5

ER -