Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Comparing the Evidential Strength for Psychotropic Drugs: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis

View ORCID ProfileMerle-Marie Pittelkow, View ORCID ProfileYmkje Anna de Vries, View ORCID ProfileRei Monden, View ORCID ProfileJojanneke A. Bastiaansen, View ORCID ProfileDon van Ravenzwaaij
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.21252887
Merle-Marie Pittelkow
1Department Psychometrics and Statistics, University of Groningen, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Merle-Marie Pittelkow
  • For correspondence: m.pittelkow@rug.nl
Ymkje Anna de Vries
2Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands
3Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 GY Groningen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ymkje Anna de Vries
Rei Monden
4Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, 9712 CP Groningen, the Netherlands
5Department of Biomedical Statistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 565-0871 Osaka, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rei Monden
Jojanneke A. Bastiaansen
3Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 GY Groningen, the Netherlands
6Department of Education and Research, Friesland Mental Health Care Services, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jojanneke A. Bastiaansen
Don van Ravenzwaaij
1Department Psychometrics and Statistics, University of Groningen, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Don van Ravenzwaaij
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective Approval and prescription of drugs should be informed by the strength of evidence for efficacy. While there is no formal policy towards different standards for drug approval, the typical strength of evidence might differ for different psychotropic drug groups. Using a Bayesian framework, we examine (1) whether psychotropic drugs are supported by substantial evidence (at the time of Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval), and (2) whether there are systematic differences across drug groups.

Methods Data from short-term, placebo-controlled phase II/III clinical trials for 15 antipsychotics, 16 antidepressants for depression, nine antidepressants for anxiety, and 20 drugs for ADHD were extracted from FDA reviews evaluating efficacy prior to marketing approval. Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis was performed and strength of evidence was quantified with the Bayes factor (BFBMA).

Results We observed substantial variation in strength of evidence and trialling between approved psychotropic drugs: Median evidential strength was extremely strong for ADHD medication (BFBMA = 1820.4), but considerably lower and more frequently classified as weak or moderate for antidepressants for both depression (BFBMA = 94.2) and anxiety (BFBMA = 49.8). Differences might be accounted for by varying median effect sizes (schizophrenia: ESBMA = 0.45, depression: ESBMA = 0.30, anxiety: ESBMA = 0.37, ADHD: ESBMA = 0.72), sample sizes (schizophrenia: N = 324, depression: N = 218, anxiety: N = 254, ADHD: N = 189.5), and numbers of trials (schizophrenia: Nr = 3, depression: Nr = 5.5, anxiety: Nr = 3, ADHD: Nr = 2).

Limitations The analysis only included pre-marketing studies.

Conclusion Evidential strength varied across drug groups: Although most psychotropic drugs were supported by strong evidence at the time of approval, some drugs only had moderate or even ambiguous evidence. These results show the need for more systematic quantification and classification of statistical evidence for psychotropic drugs, and for transparent and clear communication of evidential strength toward clinical decision makers.

Registration https://osf.io/5jn2d

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This project is funded by the NWO Vidi grant to D. van Ravenzwaaij (016.Vidi.188.001)

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study involved publicly available trial-level data. No ethical approval was needed.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available at OSF, https://osf.io/364t5/

https://osf.io/364t5/

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 07, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparing the Evidential Strength for Psychotropic Drugs: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparing the Evidential Strength for Psychotropic Drugs: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis
Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Ymkje Anna de Vries, Rei Monden, Jojanneke A. Bastiaansen, Don van Ravenzwaaij
medRxiv 2021.03.04.21252887; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.21252887
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparing the Evidential Strength for Psychotropic Drugs: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis
Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Ymkje Anna de Vries, Rei Monden, Jojanneke A. Bastiaansen, Don van Ravenzwaaij
medRxiv 2021.03.04.21252887; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.21252887

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (179)
  • Allergy and Immunology (433)
  • Anesthesia (99)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (946)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (178)
  • Dermatology (109)
  • Emergency Medicine (260)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (420)
  • Epidemiology (8978)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (419)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1947)
  • Geriatric Medicine (190)
  • Health Economics (401)
  • Health Informatics (1327)
  • Health Policy (657)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (519)
  • Hematology (212)
  • HIV/AIDS (419)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10793)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (575)
  • Medical Education (200)
  • Medical Ethics (54)
  • Nephrology (222)
  • Neurology (1824)
  • Nursing (109)
  • Nutrition (272)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (352)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (470)
  • Oncology (997)
  • Ophthalmology (297)
  • Orthopedics (111)
  • Otolaryngology (182)
  • Pain Medicine (126)
  • Palliative Medicine (44)
  • Pathology (265)
  • Pediatrics (579)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (275)
  • Primary Care Research (234)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1895)
  • Public and Global Health (4117)
  • Radiology and Imaging (675)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (366)
  • Respiratory Medicine (548)
  • Rheumatology (224)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (190)
  • Sports Medicine (177)
  • Surgery (207)
  • Toxicology (39)
  • Transplantation (109)
  • Urology (80)