Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Psychiatry

Sec. Mood Disorders

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1556470

Assessment of minimum clinically important difference in symptoms and functionality of Japanese patients with major depressive disorder following inadequate response to antidepressants: A post hoc analysis of the Long-term study of brexpiprazole augmentation therapy in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder

Provisionally accepted
Hikaru Hori Hikaru Hori 1Masako Shiosakai Masako Shiosakai 2Yoshiyuki Shibasaki Yoshiyuki Shibasaki 3Kentaro Yamato Kentaro Yamato 3,4Yilong Zhang Yilong Zhang 3*
  • 1 Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan
  • 2 Clinical Development, Headquarters of Clinical Development, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan
  • 3 Medical Affairs HEOR/RWE, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan
  • 4 Department of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Bunkyō, Tōkyō, Japan

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    The aim of this study was to apply the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) concept to clinical results for Japanese patients with major depressive disorder following inadequate response to antidepressants, and to explore the disparity in what physicians and patients considered important in the treatment of depression.The original study was a 52-week, open-label, multicenter study on the administration of 2 mg/d of brexpiprazole as adjunctive therapy for patients with major depressive disorder. Here, we conducted a post hoc analysis to determine the MCID in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and EQ-5D-5L-derived utility score. We compared the area under the curve (AUC) and correlation coefficients for the MADRS, SDS, and utility scores between the physicians' and patients' responses.The MCIDs for this patient group were 4.89-4.94 for the MADRS score, 31.15-35.10% for the MADRS improvement rate, 0.69-2.14 for the SDS score, and 0.045-0.195 for the utility score. The MCIDs for the SDS and utility scores derived from the patientperspective anchor were almost twice as high as those from the physician-perspective anchor.The utility score had the highest AUC and correlation coefficient for the patient-perspective anchor, while the MADRS score did for the physician-perspective anchor.The MCIDs for the MADRS, SDS, and EQ-5D-5L -derived utility scores were estimated. Physicians focus more on depressive symptoms and prioritize symptom severity over improvements in functionality and activities of daily life, in contrast to patients, who prioritize such improvements.

    Keywords: Major Depressive Disorder, Minimum clinically important difference, Montgomery-åsberg depression rating scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, EuroQol 5dimension 5-level

    Received: 06 Jan 2025; Accepted: 25 Feb 2025.

    Copyright: © 2025 Hori, Shiosakai, Shibasaki, Yamato and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Yilong Zhang, Medical Affairs HEOR/RWE, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

    Research integrity at Frontiers

    Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset

    94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good

    Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.


    Find out more