Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Application of Item Response Theory to Model Disease Progression and Agomelatine Effect in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

  • Research Article
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

In this paper, we studied the effect over time of agomelatine, an antidepressant drug administered in patient with major depressive disorder, through item response theory (IRT), taking into account a strong placebo effect and missing not at random. We also assessed the informativeness of the HAMD-17 scale’s item.

Materials and Methods

The data includes five phase III clinical trials sponsored by Servier Institute, totalling 1549 patients followed during a maximum of 1 year. At each observation, individual scores for the 17 items of the HAMD scale were recorded. The probability for each score was modelled with IRT. A non-linear mixed effects model was used to describe the evolution of the disease and was coupled with a time to event model to predict dropout. Clinical trial simulations were then used to compare placebo and active treatment. Informativeness of each item was evaluated using the Fisher information theory.

Results

The best model combined an IRT model, a longitudinal model for underlying depression which describes the remission and then a possible relapse, and a hazard model for dropout depending on the evolution from baseline. The drug effect was best modelled as an effect on the remission and the relapse phases. The median predicted drop in HAMD between baseline and 6 weeks was 8.8 (90% PI, 8.3–9.2) when on placebo and 13.1 (90% PI, 12.8–13.4) when treated. Nine items were found to be the most informative.

Conclusion

The IRT framework allowed to characterise the evolution of depression with time and estimate the effect of agomelatine, as well as the link between symptoms and disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO. World Health Organisation; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression. Accessed 13 Sept 2019.

  2. Solomon DA, Keller MB, Leon AC, Mueller TI, Lavori PW, Shea MT, et al. Multiple recurrences of major depressive disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(2):229–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kessler RC, Bromet EJ. The epidemiology of depression across cultures. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:119–38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Weissman MM, Bland RC, Canino GJ, Faravelli C, Greenwald S, Hwu HG, et al. Cross-national epi-demiology of major depression and bipolar disorder. JAMA. 1996 Jul;276(4):293–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van de Velde S, Bracke P, Levecque K. Gender differences in depression in 23 European countries. Cross-national variation in the gender gap in depression. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jul;71:305–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bentley SM, Pagalilauan GL, Simpson SA. Major depression. Med Clin N Am. 2014;98(5):981–1005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. De Bodinat C, Guardiola-Lemaitre B, Mocaër E, Renard P, Muñoz C, Millan MJ. Agomelatine, the first melatonergic antidepressant: discovery, characterization and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(8):628.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Racagni G, Riva MA, Molteni R, Musazzi L, Calabrese F, Popoli M, et al. Mode of action of agomelatine: synergy between melatonergic and 5-HT2C receptors. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2011;12(8):574–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Atkinson LZ, Ogawa Y, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10128):1357–66.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Taylor D, Sparshatt A, Varma S, Olofinjana O. Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies. Br Med J. 2014;348:g1888.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Khan A, Detke M, Khan SR, Mallinckrodt C. Placebo response and antidepressant clinical trial outcome. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2003;191(4):211–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Iovieno N, Papakostas GI. Correlation between different levels of placebo response rate and clinical trial outcome in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73(10):1300–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56–62.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Faries D, Herrera J, Rayamajhi J, DeBrota D, Demitrack M, Potter WZ. The responsiveness of the Hamilton depression rating scale. J Psychiatr Res. 2000;34(1):3–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bagby RM, Ryder AG, Schuller DR, Marshall MB. The Hamilton depression rating scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight? Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(12):2163–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bech P, Rafaelsen O. The use of rating scales exemplified by a comparison of the Hamilton and the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1980;62(S285):128–32.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gibbons RD, Clark DC, Kupfer DJ. Exactly what does the Hamilton depression rating scale measure? J Psychiatr Res. 1993;27(3):259–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Montgomery SA, Åsberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134(4):382–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maier W, Philipp M. Improving the assessment of severity of depressive states: a reduction of the Hamilton Depression Scale. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1985;18(01):114–5.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McIntyre R, Kennedy S, Bagby RM, Bakish D. Assessing full remission. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2002;27(4):235.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ueckert S, Plan EL, Ito K, Karlsson MO, Corrigan B, Hooker AC, et al. Improved utilization of ADAS-cog assessment data through item response theory based pharmacometric modeling. Pharm Res. 2014;31(8):2152–65.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Buatois S, Retout S, Frey N, Ueckert S. Item response theory as an efficient tool to describe a heterogeneous clinical rating scale in de novo idiopathic Parkinson’s disease patients. Pharm Res. 2017;34(10):2109–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bock RD. A brief history of item theory response. J Educ Meas. 1997;16(4):21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Verma N, Beretvas SN, Pascual B, Masdeu JC, Markey MK. New scoring methodology improves the sensitivity of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) in clinical trials. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2015;7(1):64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Schneider LS, Kennedy RE, Wang G, Cutter GR. Differences in Alzheimer disease clinical trial outcomes based on age of the participants. Neurology. 2015;84(11):1121–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Dowling NM, Bolt DM, Deng S. An approach for estimating item sensitivity to within-person change over time: an illustration using the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). Psychol Assess. 2016;28(12):1576.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Novakovic AM, Krekels EH, Munafo A, Ueckert S, Karlsson MO. Application of item response theory to modeling of expanded disability status scale in multiple sclerosis. AAPS J. 2017;19(1):172–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vandemeulebroecke M, Bornkamp B, Krahnke T, Mielke J, Monsch A, Quarg P. A longitudinal item response theory model to characterize cognition over time in elderly subjects. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6(9):635–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Välitalo P, Krekels E, van Dijk M, Simons S, Tibboel D, Knibbe C. Morphine pharmacodynamics in mechanically ventilated preterm neonates undergoing endotracheal suctioning. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6(4):239–48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gottipati G, Karlsson MO, Plan EL. Modeling a composite score in Parkinson’s disease using item response theory. AAPS J. 2017;19(3):837–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Krekels E, Novakovic AM, Vermeulen A, Friberg LE, Karlsson MO. Item response theory to quantify longitudinal placebo and paliperidone effects on PANSS scores in schizophrenia. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6(8):543–51.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Guk J, Chae D, Son H, Yoo J, Heo JH, Park K. Model-based assessment of the benefits and risks of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator treatment in acute ischaemic stroke. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(11):2586–99.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Chae D, Park K. An item response theory based integrated model of headache, nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia in migraine patients. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2018;45(5):721–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Baker FB. The basics of item response theory. ERIC; 2001.

  35. Gomeni R, Lavergne A, Merlo-Pich E. Modelling placebo response in depression trials using a longitu-dinal model with informative dropout. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009;36(1):4–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Goodwin GM, Emsley R, Rembry S, Rouillon F. Agomelatine prevents relapse in patients with major depressive disorder without evidence of a discontinuation syndrome: a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(8):1128–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Claghorn JL, Feighner JP. A double-blind comparison of paroxetine with imipramine in the long-term treatment of depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1993;13:23S–7S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mitsikostas DD, Mantonakis L, Chalarakis N. Nocebo in clinical trials for depression: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2014;215(1):82–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mazumdar S, Tang G, Houck PR, Dew MA, Begley AE, Scott J, et al. Statistical analysis of longitudinal psychiatric data with dropouts. J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41(12):1032–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Little RJ. Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measures studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90(431):1112–21.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hu C, Sale ME. A joint model for nonlinear longitudinal data with informative dropout. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2003;30(1):83–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Björnsson MA, Friberg LE, Simonsson US. Performance of nonlinear mixed effects models in the presence of informative dropout. AAPS J. 2015;17(1):245–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pierre Olié J, Kasper S. Efficacy of agomelatine, a MT1/MT2 receptor agonist with 5-HT2C antagonistic properties, in major depressive disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2007;10(5):661–73.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kennedy S, Emsley R. Placebo-controlled trial of agomelatine in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2006;16(2):93–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kennedy SH, Avedisova A, Giménez-Montesinos N, Belaïdi C, agomelatine study group, et al. A placebo-controlled study of three agomelatine dose regimens (10 mg, 25 mg, 25-50 mg) in patients with major depressive disorder. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;24(4):553–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Heun R, Ahokas A, Boyer P, Giménez-Montesinos N, Pontes-Soares F, Olivier V. The efficacy of agome-latine in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder: a placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(6):587–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jacqmin P, Snoeck E, Van Schaick E, Gieschke R, Pillai P, Steimer JL, et al. Modelling response time profiles in the absence of drug concentrations: definition and performance evaluation of the K-PD model. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007;34(1):57–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kjellsson MC, Zingmark PH, Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. Comparison of proportional and differ-ential odds models for mixed-effects analysis of categorical data. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2008;35(5):483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ueckert S. Modeling composite assessment data using item response theory. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2018;7(4):205–18.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Gomeni R, Merlo-Pich E. Bayesian modelling and ROC analysis to predict placebo responders using clinical score measured in the initial weeks of treatment in depression trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(5):595–613.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Holford N, Li J, Benincosa L, Birath M. Population disease progress models for the time course of HAMD score in depressed patients receiving placebo in anti-depressant clinical trials. Abstracts of the XI annual meeting of the population approach group in Europe. 2002;Abstr. 311. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=311. Accessed 13 Sept 2019.

  53. Mould DR. Developing models of disease progression. In: Ette EI, Williams PJ, editors. Pharmacometrics: the science of quantitative pharmacology; 2007. p. 547–81.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shang EY, Gibbs MA, Landen JW, Krams M, Russell T, Denman NG, et al. Evaluation of struc-tural models to describe the effect of placebo upon the time course of major depressive disorder. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2009;36(1):63–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bauer JR, ICON S Development. NONMEM users guide: introduction to NONMEM 7.3.0. Maryland; 2013.

  56. Russu A, Marostica E, De Nicolao G, Hooker AC, Poggesi I, Gomeni R, et al. Joint modeling of efficacy, dropout, and tolerability in flexible-dose trials: a case study in depression. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(5):863–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Papp M, Gruca P, Boyer PA, Mocaër E. Effect of agomelatine in the chronic mild stress model of depression in the rat. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28(4):694.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Singh SP, Singh V, Kar N. Efficacy of agomelatine in major depressive disorder: meta-analysis and appraisal. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012;15(3):417–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Koesters M, Guaiana G, Cipriani A, Becker T, Barbui C. Agomelatine efficacy and acceptability revisited: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomised trials. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(3):179–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cusin C, Yang H, Yeung A, Fava M. Rating scales for depression. In: Handbook of clinical rating scales and assessment in psychiatry and mental health. Springer; 2009. p. 7–35.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Valérie Olivier, Pierre-François Penelaud and Cécilia Gabriel Gracia for their clinical insight and challenging discussions. We would like to thank also Donato Teutonico and Karl Brendel for their valuable contribution to this work as well as Hervé Le Nagard and Lionel de la Tribouille for the use of the computer cluster services hosted on the “Centre de Biomodélisation UMR1137”. This work is also indebted to the investigators in the Goodwin et al. (36), Olie, Kennedy and Emsley (44), Kennedy et al. (45) and Heun (46) studies.

Funding

Marc Cerou received funding from Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier, as part of a PhD research fellowship programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Paris, IAME, INSERM, F-75018, Paris, France

    Marc Cerou & Emmanuelle Comets

  2. Division of Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacometrics, Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier, Suresnes, France

    Marc Cerou, Sophie Peigné & Marylore Chenel

  3. CIC 1414, INSERM, 35700, Rennes, France

    Emmanuelle Comets

  4. Université Rennes-1, 35700, Rennes, France

    Emmanuelle Comets

Authors
  1. Marc Cerou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie Peigné
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emmanuelle Comets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marylore Chenel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Cerou.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Emmanuelle Comets and Marylore Chenel are co-last authors

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(PDF 2273 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cerou, M., Peigné, S., Comets, E. et al. Application of Item Response Theory to Model Disease Progression and Agomelatine Effect in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder. AAPS J 22, 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-019-0379-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-019-0379-x

Key Words

Search

Navigation