Reporting outcomes in clinical trials for bipolar disorder: a commentary and suggestions for change
- 4 July 2008
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Bipolar Disorders
- Vol. 10 (5), 566-579
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5618.2008.00611.x
Abstract
Newer outcome measures and statistical reporting that better translate efficacy data to evidence-based psychiatric care are needed when evaluating clinical trials for bipolar disorder. Using efficacy studies as illustrations, the authors review and recommend changes in the reporting of traditional clinical outcomes both in the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar disorder.Definitions of response, remission, relapse, recovery, and recurrence are reviewed and recommendations for change are made. These suggestions include reporting the numbers needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH), and a ratio of the two, likelihood of help or harm (LHH), as an important element of the effect size (ES). Moreover, models of prediction that conduct sensitivity or specificity analyses and utilize decision trees to help predict positive and negative outcomes of interest (for instance, excessive weight gain, or time to remission) using positive or negative predictive values (PPV or NPV) are reviewed for potential value to clinicians. Finally, functional and cognitive assessments are recommended for maintenance studies of bipolar disorder.The examples provided in this manuscript underscore that reporting the NNT or NNH, or alternative effect sizes, or using PPV or NPV may be of particular value to clinicians. Such reports are likely to help translate efficacy-driven clinical data to information that will more readily guide clinicians on the benefits and risks of specific interventions in bipolar disorder.The authors opine that reporting these newer outcomes, such as NNT or NNH, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), or PPV or NPV will help translate the results of clinical trials into a language that is more readily understood by clinicians. Moreover, assessing and evaluating functional and cognitive outcomes will not only inform clinicians about potential differences among therapeutic options, but likely will make it easier to communicate such differences to persons with bipolar illness or to their families. Finally, we hope such scientific and research efforts will translate to optimism for recovery-based outcomes in persons with bipolar disorder.Keywords
This publication has 51 references indexed in Scilit:
- Subsyndromal depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar and unipolar disorder during clinical remissionJournal of Affective Disorders, 2008
- Spanish version of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-S): Psychometric properties of a brief scale for cognitive evaluation in schizophreniaSchizophrenia Research, 2007
- Effectiveness of Adjunctive Antidepressant Treatment for Bipolar DepressionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Developing core sets for persons with bipolar disorder based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthBipolar Disorders, 2007
- Validity and reliability of the Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) in bipolar disorderClinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 2007
- Cost-effectiveness of clinical interventions for reducing the global burden of bipolar disorderThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2005
- A systematic review evaluating health-related quality of life, work impairment, and healthcare costs and utilization in bipolar disorderCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, 2004
- The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)Medical Care, 1993
- A New Depression Scale Designed to be Sensitive to ChangeThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 1979
- A Rating Scale for Mania: Reliability, Validity and SensitivityThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 1978