Daily life stressors in the course of Major Depressive Disorder: Changes with treatment and potential predictor and moderator of treatment response Öffentlichkeit

Furman, Benjamin (Spring 2020)

Permanent URL: https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/n296x030x?locale=de
Published

Abstract

Background: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is one of the most prevalent and debilitating diseases worldwide. While the primary treatment options for MDD, evidence-based psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, are equally effective for a population, for a given patient one treatment might provide significantly better results. Moreover, there have been few clinical or biological factors identified that predict differential response to these treatments and can thus guide optimal treatment selection

Objective: The Predictors of Remission in Depression to Individual and Combined Treatments (PReDICT) study aimed to identify both clinical and biological factors that are predictive of treatment outcomes in MDD in treatment-naïve adults. This study evaluated whether scores on the Hassles and Uplifts Scale (HUPS) can serve as either general predictors of treatment outcome or moderators of the relationship between treatment type and treatment outcome.

Method: Treatment-naïve adults between the ages of 18 and 65 with MDD were randomly assigned with equal likelihood to 12 weeks of acute treatment in one of three treatment groups: escitalopram (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor), duloxetine (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Prior to treatment and following the end of acute treatment, participants responded to the HUPS. The primary outcome measure was change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

Results: Hassle scores generally significantly decreased and uplift scores generally increased following the conclusion of acute treatment. For the entire sample, the ratio of mean hassle intensity to mean uplift intensity scores (MHI:MUI) was a statistically significant predictor of treatment response and remission, and uplift frequency (UF) and the ratio of hassle frequency to uplift frequency (HF:UF) were significant, but weaker, predictors of remission. For patients in the CBT treatment arm, MHI:MUI was also a statistically significant predictor of response and remission while mean hassle intensity predicted response and UF and HF:UF predicted remission. However, HUPS scores did not predict response and remission for patients treated with medication. HUPS scores did not moderate the relationship between treatment method and treatment outcome.

Conclusion: Scores on the HUPS can predict treatment response and remission to CBT but not medication, yet they do not moderate differential remission rates. 

Table of Contents

Introduction      1

Methods        7

Study Overview      7

Patients      7     

Randomization      8

Study Visits and Treatments           9

Concomitant Medications     10

Assessments     10

Statistical Analysis     14

Results     18

Baseline Demographics and Clinical Variables     18

Baseline Correlates of HUPS Scale Scores     18

Changes in HUPS Scores over the 12 Week Acute Treatment Phase     19

Changes in HUPS Scores over 12 Week Acute Treatment Phase by Treatment Group  20

Baseline HUPS Scores as Predictors of Treatment Response     21

Baseline HUPS Scores as Moderators of Outcome by Treatment Group     22

Discussion     24

Tables and Figures     32

Table 1: Raw HUPS scores versus Imputed HUPS Scores at Baseline and Week 12    32

Table 2: Clinical Characteristics at Baseline     33

Table 3: Demographic Characteristics at Baseline     34

Table 4: Pearson’s r Correlations between HUPS Scores at Baseline     35

Table 5: Pearson’s r Correlations between HUPS Scores at Week 12     36

Table 6: Pearson’s r Correlations between Baseline HUPS Scores and Other     37

       Clinical Measures at Baseline

Table 7: Pearson’s r Correlations between Baseline HUPS Scores and Other     38

       Clinical Measures at Week 12

Table 8: Baseline Hassle Frequency Scores by Demographic Group     39

Table 9: Baseline Mean Hassle Intensity Scores by Demographic Group     40

Table 10: Baseline Uplift Frequency Scores by Demographic Group     41

Table 11: Baseline Mean Uplift Intensity Scores by Demographic Group     42

Table 12: Baseline Hassle Frequency to Uplift Frequency Ratios by     43

  Demographic Groups

Table 13: Baseline Mean Hassle Intensity to Mean Uplift Intensity Ratios by     44

  Demographic Groups

Figure 1: Change in HUPS Scores from Baseline to Week 12     45

Figure 2: Change in HUPS Scores from Baseline to Week 12 by     47

  Treatment Group

Table 14: Effect of Treatment Group on Change in HUPS Scores     51

  from Baseline to Week 12 for the Whole Sample

Table 15: Effect of Treatment Group on Change in HUPS Scores     52

  from Baseline to Week 12 for Non-Responding Patients

Table 16: Effect of Treatment Group on Change in HUPS Scores     53

  from Baseline to Week 12 for Responding Patients

Table 17: Response and Remission Rates by Treatment Group     54

Figure 3: HAM-D Scores from Baseline to Week 12 by Treatment Group     55

Table 18: Simple Logistic Regressions Predicting Likelihood     56

  of Treatment Response for the Whole Sample

Table 19: Simple Logistic Regressions Predicting Likelihood     57

  of Remission for the Whole Sample

Table 20: Simple Logistic Regressions Predicting Likelihood     58

  of Treatment Response within the CBT Group

Table 21: Simple Logistic Regressions Predicting Likelihood     59

  of Remission within the CBT Group

Table 22: Simple Logistic Regressions Predicting Likelihood     60

  of Treatment Response within the Medication Group

Table 23: Simple Logistic Regressions Predicting Likelihood     61

  of Remission within the Medication Group

Table 24: Means, Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations and Standard     62

  Errors for Week 12 HAM-D Scores for the Treatment Groups

References     64

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement
  • Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
School
Department
Degree
Submission
Language
  • English
Research Field
Stichwort
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor
Committee Members
Zuletzt geändert

Primary PDF

Supplemental Files