A template and tutorial for preregistering studies using passive smartphone measures.

Passive smartphone measures hold significant potential and are increasingly employed in psychological and biomedical research to capture an individual's behavior. These measures involve the near-continuous and unobtrusive collection of data from smartphones without requiring active input from participants. For example, GPS sensors are used to determine the (social) context of a person, and accelerometers to measure movement. However, utilizing passive smartphone measures presents methodological challenges during data collection and analysis. Researchers must make multiple decisions when working with such measures, which can result in different conclusions. Unfortunately, the transparency of these decision-making processes is often lacking. The implementation of open science practices is only beginning to emerge in digital phenotyping studies and varies widely across studies. Well-intentioned researchers may fail to report on some decisions due to the variety of choices that must be made. To address this issue and enhance reproducibility in digital phenotyping studies, we propose the adoption of preregistration as a way forward. Although there have been some attempts to preregister digital phenotyping studies, a template for registering such studies is currently missing. This could be problematic due to the high level of complexity that requires a well-structured template. Therefore, our objective was to develop a preregistration template that is easy to use and understandable for researchers. Additionally, we explain this template and provide resources to assist researchers in making informed decisions regarding data collection, cleaning, and analysis. Overall, we aim to make researchers' choices explicit, enhance transparency, and elevate the standards for studies utilizing passive smartphone measures.

Precision medicine for long-term depression outcomes using the Personalized Advantage Index approach: cognitive therapy or interpersonal psychotherapy?

BACKGROUND: Psychotherapies for depression are equally effective on average, but individual responses vary widely. Outcomes can be improved by optimizing treatment selection using multivariate prediction models. A promising approach is the Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) that predicts the optimal treatment for a given individual and the magnitude of the advantage. The current study aimed to extend the PAI to long-term depression outcomes after acute-phase psychotherapy. METHODS: Data come from a randomized trial comparing cognitive therapy (CT, n = 76) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT, n = 75) for major depressive disorder (MDD). Primary outcome was depression severity, as assessed by the BDI-II, during 17-month follow-up. First, predictors and moderators were selected from 38 pre-treatment variables using a two-step machine learning approach. Second, predictors and moderators were combined into a final model, from which PAI predictions were computed with cross-validation. Long-term PAI predictions were then compared to actual follow-up outcomes and post-treatment PAI predictions. RESULTS: One predictor (parental alcohol abuse) and two moderators (recent life events; childhood maltreatment) were identified. Individuals assigned to their PAI-indicated treatment had lower follow-up depression severity compared to those assigned to their PAI-non-indicated treatment. This difference was significant in two subsets of the overall sample: those whose PAI score was in the upper 60%, and those whose PAI indicated CT, irrespective of magnitude. Long-term predictions did not overlap substantially with predictions for acute benefit. CONCLUSIONS: If replicated, long-term PAI predictions could enhance precision medicine by selecting the optimal treatment for a given depressed individual over the long term.

The contribution of depressive 'disorder characteristics' to determinations of prognosis for adults with depression: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate general factors associated with prognosis regardless of the type of treatment received, for adults with depression in primary care. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central (inception to 12/01/2020) for RCTs that included the most commonly used comprehensive measure of depressive and anxiety disorder symptoms and diagnoses, in primary care depression RCTs (the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule: CIS-R). Two-stage random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Twelve (n = 6024) of thirteen eligible studies (n = 6175) provided individual patient data. There was a 31% (95%CI: 25 to 37) difference in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months per standard deviation increase in baseline depressive symptoms. Four additional factors: the duration of anxiety; duration of depression; comorbid panic disorder; and a history of antidepressant treatment were also independently associated with poorer prognosis. There was evidence that the difference in prognosis when these factors were combined could be of clinical importance. Adding these variables improved the amount of variance explained in 3-4 month depressive symptoms from 16% using depressive symptom severity alone to 27%. Risk of bias (assessed with QUIPS) was low in all studies and quality (assessed with GRADE) was high. Sensitivity analyses did not alter our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: When adults seek treatment for depression clinicians should routinely assess for the duration of anxiety, duration of depression, comorbid panic disorder, and a history of antidepressant treatment alongside depressive symptom severity. This could provide clinicians and patients with useful and desired information to elucidate prognosis and aid the clinical management of depression.

Is social support pre-treatment associated with prognosis for adults with depression in primary care?

OBJECTIVE: Depressed patients rate social support as important for prognosis, but evidence for a prognostic effect is lacking. We aimed to test the association between social support and prognosis independent of treatment type, and the severity of depression, and other clinical features indicating a more severe illness. METHODS: Individual patient data were collated from all six eligible RCTs (n = 2858) of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care. Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of social support and clinical severity factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Social support was associated with prognosis independent of randomized treatment but effects were smaller when adjusting for depressive symptoms and durations of depression and anxiety, history of antidepressant treatment, and comorbid panic disorder: percentage decrease in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months per z-score increase in social support = -4.14(95%CI: -6.91 to -1.29). Those with a severe lack of social support had considerably worse prognoses than those with no lack of social support: increase in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months = 14.64%(4.25% to 26.06%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, large differences in social support pre-treatment were associated with differences in prognostic outcomes. Adding the Social Support scale to clinical assessments may be informative, but after adjusting for routinely assessed clinical prognostic factors the differences in prognosis are unlikely to be of a clinically important magnitude. Future studies might investigate more intensive treatments and more regular clinical reviews to mitigate risks of poor prognosis for those reporting a severe lack of social support.

Personalized treatment selection in routine care: Integrating machine learning and statistical algorithms to recommend cognitive behavioral or psychodynamic therapy.

Objective: This study aims at developing a treatment selection algorithm using a combination of machine learning and statistical inference to recommend patients' optimal treatment based on their pre-treatment characteristics. Methods: A disorder-heterogeneous, naturalistic sample of N = 1,379 outpatients treated with either cognitive behavioral therapy or psychodynamic therapy was analyzed. Based on a combination of random forest and linear regression, differential treatment response was modeled in the training data (n = 966) to indicate each individual's optimal treatment. A separate holdout dataset (n = 413) was used to evaluate personalized recommendations. Results: The difference in outcomes between patients treated with their optimal vs. non-optimal treatment was significant in the training data, but non-significant in the holdout data (b = -0.043, p = .280). However, for the 50% of patients with the largest predicted benefit of receiving their optimal treatment, the average percentage of change on the BSI in the holdout data was 52.6% for their optimal and 38.4% for their non-optimal treatment (p = .017; d = 0.33 [0.06, 0.61]). Conclusion: A treatment selection algorithm based on a combination of ML and statistical inference might improve treatment outcome for some, but not all outpatients and could support therapists' clinical decision-making.

A demonstration of a multi-method variable selection approach for treatment selection: Recommending cognitive-behavioral versus psychodynamic therapy for mild to moderate adult depression.

Objective: We use a new variable selection procedure for treatment selection which generates treatment recommendations based on pre-treatment characteristics for adults with mild-to-moderate depression deciding between cognitive behavioral (CBT) versus psychodynamic therapy (PDT). Method: Data are drawn from a randomized comparison of CBT versus PDT for depression (N = 167, 71% female, mean-age = 39.6). The approach combines four different statistical techniques to identify patient characteristics associated consistently with differential treatment response. Variables are combined to generate predictions indicating each individual's optimal-treatment. The average outcomes for patients who received their indicated treatment versus those who did not were compared retrospectively to estimate model utility. Results: Of 49 predictors examined, depression severity, anxiety sensitivity, extraversion, and psychological treatment-needs were included in the final model. The average post-treatment Hamilton-Depression-Rating-Scale score was 1.6 points lower (95%CI = [0.5:2.8]; d = 0.21) for those who received their indicated-treatment compared to non-indicated. Among the 60% of patients with the strongest treatment recommendations, that advantage grew to 2.6 (95%CI = [1.4:3.7]; d = 0.37). Conclusions: Variable selection procedures differ in their characterization of the importance of predictive variables. Attending to consistently-indicated predictors may be sensible when constructing treatment selection models. The small N and lack of separate validation sample indicate a need for prospective tests before this model is used.

Personalized prediction of antidepressant v. placebo response: evidence from the EMBARC study.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly heterogeneous condition in terms of symptom presentation and, likely, underlying pathophysiology. Accordingly, it is possible that only certain individuals with MDD are well-suited to antidepressants. A potentially fruitful approach to parsing this heterogeneity is to focus on promising endophenotypes of depression, such as neuroticism, anhedonia, and cognitive control deficits. METHODS: Within an 8-week multisite trial of sertraline v. placebo for depressed adults (n = 216), we examined whether the combination of machine learning with a Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) can generate individualized treatment recommendations on the basis of endophenotype profiles coupled with clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Five pre-treatment variables moderated treatment response. Higher depression severity and neuroticism, older age, less impairment in cognitive control, and being employed were each associated with better outcomes to sertraline than placebo. Across 1000 iterations of a 10-fold cross-validation, the PAI model predicted that 31% of the sample would exhibit a clinically meaningful advantage [post-treatment Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) difference ⩾3] with sertraline relative to placebo. Although there were no overall outcome differences between treatment groups (d = 0.15), those identified as optimally suited to sertraline at pre-treatment had better week 8 HRSD scores if randomized to sertraline (10.7) than placebo (14.7) (d = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: A subset of MDD patients optimally suited to sertraline can be identified on the basis of pre-treatment characteristics. This model must be tested prospectively before it can be used to inform treatment selection. However, findings demonstrate the potential to improve individual outcomes through algorithm-guided treatment recommendations.

Predictive modeling for response to lithium and quetiapine in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Lithium and quetiapine are known to be effective treatments for bipolar disorder. However, little information is available to inform prediction of response to these medications. Machine-learning methods can identify predictors of response by examining variables simultaneously. Further evaluation of models on a test sample can estimate how well these models would generalize to other samples. METHODS: Data (N = 482) were drawn from a randomized clinical trial of outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder who received adjunctive personalized treatment plus either lithium or quetiapine. Elastic net regularization (ENR) was used to generate models for lithium and quetiapine; these models were evaluated on a test set. RESULTS: Predictions from the lithium model explained 17.4% of the variance in actual observed scores of patients who received lithium in the test set, while predictions from the quetiapine model explained 32.1% of the variance of patients that received quetiapine. Of the baseline variables selected, those with the largest parameter estimates were: severity of mania; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) comorbidity; nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior; employment; and comorbidity with each of two anxiety disorders (social phobia/society anxiety and agoraphobia). Predictive accuracy of the ENR model outperformed the simple and basic theoretical models. CONCLUSION: ENR is an effective approach for building optimal and generalizable models. Variables identified through this methodology can inform future research on predictors of response to lithium and quetiapine, as well as future modeling efforts of treatment choice in bipolar disorder.

In rape trauma PTSD, patient characteristics indicate which trauma-focused treatment they are most likely to complete.

BACKGROUND: Dropout rates for effective therapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be high, especially in practice settings. Although clinicians have intuitions regarding what treatment patients may complete, there are few systematic data to drive those judgments. METHODS: A multivariable model of dropout risk was constructed with randomized clinical trial data (n = 160) comparing prolonged exposure (PE) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for rape-induced PTSD. A two-step bootstrapped variable selection algorithm was applied to identify moderators of dropout as a function of treatment condition. Employing identified moderators in a model, fivefold cross-validation yielded estimates of dropout probability for each patient in each condition. Dropout rates between patients who did and did not receive their model-indicated treatment were compared. RESULTS: Despite equivalent dropout rates across treatments, patients assigned to their model-indicated treatment were significantly less likely to drop out relative to patients who did not (relative risk = 0.49 [95% CI: 0.29-0.82]). Moderators included in the model were: childhood physical abuse, current relationship conflict, anger, and being a racial minority, all of which were associated with higher likelihood of dropout in PE than CPT. CONCLUSIONS: Individual differences among patients affect the likelihood they will complete a particular treatment, and clinicians can consider these moderators in treatment planning. In the future, treatment selection models could be used to increase the percentage of patients who will receive a full course of treatment, but replication and extension of such models, and consideration of how best to integrate them into routine practice, are needed.

Treatment Selection in Depression.

Mental health researchers and clinicians have long sought answers to the question "What works for whom?" The goal of precision medicine is to provide evidence-based answers to this question. Treatment selection in depression aims to help each individual receive the treatment, among the available options, that is most likely to lead to a positive outcome for them. Although patient variables that are predictive of response to treatment have been identified, this knowledge has not yet translated into real-world treatment recommendations. The Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) and related approaches combine information obtained prior to the initiation of treatment into multivariable prediction models that can generate individualized predictions to help clinicians and patients select the right treatment. With increasing availability of advanced statistical modeling approaches, as well as novel predictive variables and big data, treatment selection models promise to contribute to improved outcomes in depression.

A prognostic index to predict symptom and functional outcomes of a coached, web-based intervention for trauma-exposed veterans.

Researchers at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have studied interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and co-occurring conditions in both traditional and digital formats. One such empirically supported intervention is web skills training in affective and interpersonal regulation (webSTAIR), a coached, 10-module web program based on STAIR. To understand which patient characteristics were predictive of webSTAIR outcomes in a sample of trauma-exposed veterans (N = 189), we used machine learning (ML) to develop a prognostic index from among 18 baseline characteristics (i.e., demographic, military, trauma history, and clinical) to predict posttreatment posttraumatic stress disorder severity, depression severity, and psychosocial functioning impairment. We compared the ML models to a benchmark of linear regression models in which the only predictor was the baseline severity score of the outcome measure. The ML and "severity-only" models performed similarly, explaining 39%-45% of the variance in outcomes. This suggests that baseline symptom severity and functioning are strong indicators for webSTAIR outcomes in veterans, with higher severity indicating worse prognosis, and that the other variables examined did not contribute significant added predictive signal. Findings also highlight the importance of comparing ML models to an appropriate benchmark. Future research with larger samples could potentially detect smaller patient-level effects as well as effects driven by other types of variables (e.g., therapeutic process variables). As a transdiagnostic, digital intervention, webSTAIR can potentially serve a diverse veteran population with varying trauma histories and may be best conceptualized as a beneficial first step of a stepped care model for those with heightened symptoms or impairment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Measuring the active elements of cognitive-behavioral therapies.

Understanding how and for whom cognitive-behavioral therapies work is central to the development and improvement of mental health interventions. Suboptimal quantification of the active elements of cognitive-behavioral therapies has hampered progress in elucidating mechanisms of change. To advance process research on cognitive-behavioral therapies, we describe a theoretical measurement framework that focuses on the delivery, receipt, and application of the active elements of these interventions. We then provide recommendations for measuring the active elements of cognitive-behavioral therapies aligned with this framework. Finally, to support measurement harmonization and improve study comparability, we propose the development of a publicly available repository of assessment tools: the Active Elements of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies Measurement Kit.

The development and internal evaluation of a predictive model to identify for whom Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) offers superior relapse prevention for recurrent depression versus maintenance antidepressant medication.

Depression is highly recurrent, even following successful pharmacological and/or psychological intervention. We aimed to develop clinical prediction models to inform adults with recurrent depression choosing between antidepressant medication (ADM) maintenance or switching to Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). Using data from the PREVENT trial (N=424), we constructed prognostic models using elastic net regression that combined demographic, clinical and psychological factors to predict relapse at 24 months under ADM or MBCT. Only the ADM model (discrimination performance: AUC=.68) predicted relapse better than baseline depression severity (AUC=.54; one-tailed DeLong's test: z=2.8, p=.003). Individuals with the poorest ADM prognoses who switched to MBCT had better outcomes compared to those who maintained ADM (48% vs. 70% relapse, respectively; superior survival times [z=-2.7, p=.008]). For individuals with moderate-to-good ADM prognosis, both treatments resulted in similar likelihood of relapse. If replicated, the results suggest that predictive modeling can inform clinical decision-making around relapse prevention in recurrent depression.

A Novel Peer-to-Peer Coaching Program to Support Digital Mental Health: Design and Implementation.

Many individuals in need of mental health services do not currently receive care. Scalable programs are needed to reduce the burden of mental illness among those without access to existing providers. Digital interventions present an avenue for increasing the reach of mental health services. These interventions often rely on paraprofessionals, or coaches, to support the treatment. Although existing programs hold immense promise, providers must ensure that treatments are delivered with high fidelity and adherence to the treatment model. In this paper, we first highlight the tension between the scalability and fidelity of mental health services. We then describe the design and implementation of a peer-to-peer coach training program to support a digital mental health intervention for undergraduate students within a university setting. We specifically note strategies for emphasizing fidelity within our scalable framework, including principles of learning theory and competency-based supervision. Finally, we discuss future applications of this work, including the potential adaptability of our model for use within other contexts.

Stratified Care vs Stepped Care for Depression: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Depression is a major cause of disability worldwide. Although empirically supported treatments are available, there is scarce evidence on how to effectively personalize psychological treatment selection. Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 2 treatment selection strategies: stepped care and stratified care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite, cluster randomized clinical trial recruited participants from the English National Health Service from July 5, 2018, to February 1, 2019. Thirty clinicians working across 4 psychological therapy services were randomly assigned to provide stratified (n = 15) or stepped (n = 15) care. In stepped care, patients sequentially access low-intensity guided self-help followed by high-intensity psychotherapy. In stratified care, patients are matched with either low- or high-intensity treatments at initial assessment. Data were analyzed from May 18, 2020, to October 13, 2021, using intention-to-treat principles. Interventions: All clinicians used the same interview schedule to conduct initial assessments with patients seeking psychological treatment for common mental disorders, but those in the stratified care group received a personalized treatment recommendation for each patient generated by a machine learning algorithm. Eligible patients received either stratified or stepped care (ie, treatment as usual). Main Outcomes and Measures: The preregistered outcome was posttreatment reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI) of depression symptoms (measured using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire). The RCSI outcome was compared between groups using logistic regression adjusted for baseline severity. Cost-effectiveness analyses compared incremental costs and health outcomes of the 2 treatment pathways. Results: A total of 951 patients were included (618 women among 950 with data available [65.1%]; mean [SD] age, 38.27 [14.53] years). The proportion of cases of RCSI was significantly higher in the stratified care arm compared with the stepped care arm (264 of 505 [52.3%] vs 134 of 297 [45.1%]; odds ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.04-1.87]; P = .03). Stratified care was associated with a higher mean additional cost per patient (£104.5 [95% CI, £67.5-£141.6] [$139.83 (95% CI, $90.32-$189.48)]; P < .001) because more patients accessed high-intensity treatments (332 of 583 [56.9%] vs 107 of 368 [29.1%]; χ2 = 70.51; P < .001), but this additional cost resulted in an approximately 7% increase in the probability of RCSI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial of adults with common mental disorders, stratified care was efficacious and cost-effective for the treatment of depression symptoms compared with stepped care. Stratified care can improve depression treatment outcomes at a modest additional cost. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN11106183.

Efficacy and moderators of cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adults with depression: study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive therapy and behavioural activation are both widely applied and effective psychotherapies for depression, but it is unclear which works best for whom. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for examining moderators at the participant level and can provide more precise effect estimates than conventional meta-analysis, which is based on study-level data. AIMS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adults with depression, and to explore moderators of treatment effect. (PROSPERO: CRD42022341602). METHOD: Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adult acute-phase depression. Investigators of these trials will be invited to share their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects and to examine various available demographic, clinical and psychological participant characteristics as potential moderators. The primary outcome measure will be depressive symptom level at treatment completion. Secondary outcomes will include post-treatment anxiety, interpersonal functioning and quality of life, as well as follow-up outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first IPD meta-analysis concerning cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adult depression. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by using state-of-the-art statistical techniques to compare the efficacy of two widely used psychotherapies, and by shedding more light on which of these treatments might work best for whom.

Socioeconomic Indicators of Treatment Prognosis for Adults With Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Importance: Socioeconomic factors are associated with the prevalence of depression, but their associations with prognosis are unknown. Understanding this association would aid in the clinical management of depression. Objective: To determine whether employment status, financial strain, housing status, and educational attainment inform prognosis for adults treated for depression in primary care, independent of treatment and after accounting for clinical prognostic factors. Data Sources: The Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception to October 8, 2021. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized clinical trials that used the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R; the most common comprehensive screening and diagnostic measure of depressive and anxiety symptoms in primary care randomized clinical trials), measured socioeconomic factors at baseline, and sampled patients with unipolar depression who sought treatment for depression from general physicians/practitioners or who scored 12 or more points on the CIS-R. Exclusion criteria included patients with depression secondary to a personality or psychotic disorder or neurologic condition, studies of bipolar or psychotic depression, studies that included children or adolescents, and feasibility studies. Studies were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria by 2 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted and cleaned by data managers for each included study, further cleaned by multiple reviewers, and cross-checked by study chief investigators. Risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Depressive symptoms at 3 to 4 months after baseline. Results: This systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis identified 9 eligible studies that provided individual patient data for 4864 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.5 (14.0) years; 3279 women [67.4%]). The 2-stage random-effects meta-analysis end point depressive symptom scale scores were 28% (95% CI, 20%-36%) higher for unemployed patients than for employed patients and 18% (95% CI, 6%-30%) lower for patients who were homeowners than for patients living with family or friends, in hostels, or homeless, which were equivalent to 4.2 points (95% CI, 3.6-6.2 points) and 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.1-4.9 points) on the Beck Depression Inventory II, respectively. Financial strain and educational attainment were associated with prognosis independent of treatment, but unlike employment and housing status, there was little evidence of associations after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that unemployment was associated with a poor prognosis whereas home ownership was associated with improved prognosis. These differences were clinically important and independent of the type of treatment received. Interventions that address employment or housing difficulties could improve outcomes for patients with depression.

Life events and treatment prognosis for depression: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between major life events and prognosis independent of treatment type: (1) after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors and socio-demographics; (2) amongst patients with depressive episodes at least six-months long; and (3) patients with a first life-time depressive episode. METHODS: Six RCTs of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care met eligibility criteria, individual patient data (IPD) were collated from all six (n = 2858). Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of life events, demographics and clinical prognostic factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Reporting any major life events was associated with poorer prognosis regardless of treatment type. Controlling for baseline clinical factors, socio-demographics and social support resulted in minimal residual evidence of associations between life events and treatment prognosis. However, removing factors that might mediate the relationships between life events and outcomes reporting: arguments/disputes, problem debt, violent crime, losing one's job, and three or more life events were associated with considerably worse prognoses (percentage difference in 3-4 months depressive symptoms compared to no reported life events =30.3%(95%CI: 18.4-43.3)). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing for clinical prognostic factors, social support, and socio-demographics is likely to be more informative for prognosis than assessing self-reported recent major life events. However, clinicians might find it useful to ask about such events, and if they are still affecting the patient, consider interventions to tackle problems related to those events (e.g. employment support, mediation, or debt advice). Further investigations of the efficacy of such interventions will be important.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personalized Medicine With Software.

We present methodological advances in understanding the effectiveness of personalized medicine models and supply easy-to-use open-source software. Personalized medicine involves the systematic use of individual patient characteristics to determine which treatment option is most likely to result in a better average outcome for the patient. Why is personalized medicine not done more in practice? One of many reasons is because practitioners do not have any easy way to holistically evaluate whether their personalization procedure does better than the standard of care, termed improvement. Our software, "Personalized Treatment Evaluator" (the R package PTE), provides inference for improvement out-of-sample in many clinical scenarios. We also extend current methodology by allowing evaluation of improvement in the case where the endpoint is binary or survival. In the software, the practitioner inputs 1) data from a single-stage randomized trial with one continuous, incidence or survival endpoint and 2) an educated guess of a functional form of a model for the endpoint constructed from domain knowledge. The bootstrap is then employed on data unseen during model fitting to provide confidence intervals for the improvement for the average future patient (assuming future patients are similar to the patients in the trial). One may also test against a null scenario where the hypothesized personalization are not more useful than a standard of care. We demonstrate our method's promise on simulated data as well as on data from a randomized comparative trial investigating two treatments for depression.

A personalized index to inform selection of a trauma-focused or non-trauma-focused treatment for PTSD.

PTSD treatment guidelines recommend several treatments with extensive empirical support, including Prolonged Exposure (PE), a trauma-focused treatment and Present-Centered Therapy (PCT), a non-trauma-focused therapy. Research to inform treatment selection has yielded inconsistent findings with single prognostic variables that are difficult to integrate into clinical decision-making. We examined whether a combination of prognostic factors can predict different benefits in a trauma-focused vs. a non-trauma-focused psychotherapy. We applied a multi-method variable selection procedure and developed a prognostic index (PI) with a sample of 267 female veterans and active-duty service members (mean age 45; SD = 9.37; 53% White) with current PTSD who began treatment in a randomized clinical trial comparing PE and PCT. We conducted linear regressions predicting outcomes (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale score) with treatment condition, the PI, and the interaction between the PI and treatment condition. The interaction between treatment type and PI moderated treatment response, moderated post-treatment symptom severity, b = 0.30, SEb = 0.15 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.60], p = .049. For the 64% of participants with the best prognoses, PE resulted in better post-treatment outcomes; for the remainder, there was no difference. Use of a PI may lead to optimized patient outcomes and greater confidence when selecting trauma-focused treatments.