Abstract
Matching each patient to the most effective treatment option(s) remains a challenging problem in psychiatry. Clinical rating scales often fail to differentiate between treatments because most treatments improve the scores of all individual items at only slightly varying degrees. As a result, nearly all clinical trials in psychiatry fail to differentiate between active treatments. In this paper, we introduce a new statistical technique called Supervised Varimax (SV) that corrects this problem by accurately detecting large treatment differences directly from original clinical trial data. The algorithm combines the individual items of a clinical rating scale that only slightly differ between treatments into a few scores that greatly differ between treatments. We applied SV to multi-center, double-blind and randomized clinical trials called CATIE and STAR*D which were long thought to identify few to no differential treatment effects. SV identified optimal outcomes harboring large differential treatment effects in Phase I of CATIE (absolute sum = 1.279, pFDR = 0.002). Post-hoc analyses revealed that olanzapine is more effective than quetiapine and ziprasidone for hostility in chronic schizophrenia (difference = −0.284, pFWER = 0.047; difference = −0.283, pFWER = 0.048), and perphenazine is more effective than ziprasidone for emotional dysregulation (difference = −0.313, pFWER = 0.020). SV also discovered that buproprion augmentation is more effective than buspirone augmentation for treatment-resistant depression with increased appetite from Level 2 of STAR*D (difference = −0.280, pFWER = 0.003). SV represents a powerful methodology that enables precision psychiatry from clinical trials by optimizing the outcome measures to differentiate between treatments.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the University of Pittsburgh.
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:
We downloaded the openly available human data of both studies from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Data Archive (https://nda.nih.gov/) with a limited access data use certificate.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Shortened exposition, more intuitive explanation in the Introduction, further refined hypothesis testing, improved figure quality
Data Availability
R code is available at github.com/ericstrobl/SV. All datasets are available online at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Data Archive (https://nda.nih.gov/) with a limited access data use certificate.
