Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Joanna Le Noury, Bangor University; John Nardo, Emory University; David Healy, Bangor University; Jon Jureidini, University of Adelaide; Melissa Raven, University of Adelaide; Catalin Tufanaru, University of Adelaide; Elia Abi-Jaoude, University of Toronto
• Language: English
• Date: 2015-09-16
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group: BMJ
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © Le Noury et al 2015
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4320
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: BMJ
• ISSN: 0959-8138
• Start Page: h4320
• End Page: h4320
• Grant/Funding Information: The study was funded by SmithKline Beecham.; This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
• Research Categories: Psychology, General; Health Sciences, Pharmacology

Abstract

Objectives To reanalyse SmithKline Beecham’s Study 329 (published by Keller and colleagues in 2001), the primary objective of which was to compare the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and imipramine with placebo in the treatment of adolescents with unipolar major depression. The reanalysis under the restoring invisible and abandoned trials (RIAT) initiative was done to see whether access to and reanalysis of a full dataset from a randomised controlled trial would have clinically relevant implications for evidence based medicine. Design Double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. Setting 12 North American academic psychiatry centres, from 20 April 1994 to 15 February 1998. Participants 275 adolescents with major depression of at least eight weeks in duration. Exclusion criteria included a range of comorbid psychiatric and medical disorders and suicidality. Interventions Participants were randomised to eight weeks double blind treatment with paroxetine (20-40 mg), imipramine (200-300 mg), or placebo. Main outcome measures The prespecified primary efficacy variables were change from baseline to the end of the eight week acute treatment phase in total Hamilton depression scale (HAM-D) score and the proportion of responders (HAM-D score ≤8 or ≥50% reduction in baseline HAM-D) at acute endpoint. Prespecified secondary outcomes were changes from baseline to endpoint in depression items in K-SADS-L, clinical global impression, autonomous functioning checklist, self-perception profile, and sickness impact scale; predictors of response; and number of patients who relapse during the maintenance phase. Adverse experiences were to be compared primarily by using descriptive statistics. No coding dictionary was prespecified. Results The efficacy of paroxetine and imipramine was not statistically or clinically significantly different from placebo for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcome. HAM-D scores decreased by 10.7 (least squares mean) (95% confidence interval 9.1 to 12.3), 9.0 (7.4 to 10.5), and 9.1 (7.5 to 10.7) points, respectively, for the paroxetine, imipramine and placebo groups (P=0.20). There were clinically significant increases in harms, including suicidal ideation and behaviour and other serious adverse events in the paroxetine group and cardiovascular problems in the imipramine group. Conclusions Neither paroxetine nor high dose imipramine showed efficacy for major depression in adolescents, and there was an increase in harms with both drugs. Access to primary data from trials has important implications for both clinical practice and research, including that published conclusions about efficacy and safety should not be read as authoritative. The reanalysis of Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available to increase the rigour of the evidence base.