Restoring TADS: RIAT reanalysis of the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study

BackgroundThe Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS) continues to influence international clinical practice guidelines for adolescent depression.ObjectiveWe assessed TADS' effectiveness and harms through a Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT)-led reanalysis.MethodsTADS was a phase-three multicentre, parallel four-arm randomised controlled superiority trial that randomised adolescents (<i>n</i> = 439) to fluoxetine alone (FLX), CBT alone (CBT), open-label fluoxetine plus CBT (COMB) or placebo pill alone (PBO) over 12 weeks. COMB and CBT groups were unblinded to their treatment allocation. Primary outcomes were the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I).ResultsOur ITT reanalysis showed a significant decrease in CDRS-R at 12 weeks in COMB compared with PBO (-6.65; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and CBT (-7.63, <i>p</i> < 0.001), but not FLX (-4.07, <i>p</i> = 0.063). There was no difference between FLX, CBT and PBO. There was a higher proportion of CGI-I responders in COMB (73.72% [SE 4.43]) compared with all other arms: FLX (64.16% [SE 4.76]), CBT (51.06% [SE 5.29]) and PBO (38.76% [SE 4.87]; all <i>p</i> < 0.001); FLX had more responders than PBO (<i>p</i> = 0.004). 369 adverse events were reported for 171 participants, with 66% occurring in those taking fluoxetine. We found 32 serious adverse events (22 in those taking fluoxetine), which varied from original authors' reporting.ConclusionsOur reanalysis replicated the original investigators' reporting that COMB demonstrated the most robust outcomes and that FLX was not superior to PBO. In contrast to the original TADS Team's reporting, there was a higher level of harm uncovered in allocation groups taking fluoxetine, including 11 unreported suicide-related adverse events. Overall, the marked increase in harms among participants taking fluoxetine warrants further circumspection when prescribing it to adolescents.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine
Published
2025-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09246479251337879
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.61

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Restoring TADS: RIAT reanalysis of the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study

Melissa Raven, Julie Klau, Richard John Woodman, Elia Abi‐Jaoude et al.
2 citations
International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
4.61
article

Restoring TADS: RIAT reanalysis of the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study

Melissa Raven, Julie Klau, Richard John Woodman, Elia Abi‐Jaoude, Jon Jureidini, Natalie Aboustate, Joanna Le Noury
article en
2 citations

Abstract

BackgroundThe Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS) continues to influence international clinical practice guidelines for adolescent depression.ObjectiveWe assessed TADS' effectiveness and harms through a Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT)-led reanalysis.MethodsTADS was a phase-three multicentre, parallel four-arm randomised controlled superiority trial that randomised adolescents (<i>n</i> = 439) to fluoxetine alone (FLX), CBT alone (CBT), open-label fluoxetine plus CBT (COMB) or placebo pill alone (PBO) over 12 weeks. COMB and CBT groups were unblinded to their treatment allocation. Primary outcomes were the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I).ResultsOur ITT reanalysis showed a significant decrease in CDRS-R at 12 weeks in COMB compared with PBO (-6.65; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and CBT (-7.63, <i>p</i> < 0.001), but not FLX (-4.07, <i>p</i> = 0.063). There was no difference between FLX, CBT and PBO. There was a higher proportion of CGI-I responders in COMB (73.72% [SE 4.43]) compared with all other arms: FLX (64.16% [SE 4.76]), CBT (51.06% [SE 5.29]) and PBO (38.76% [SE 4.87]; all <i>p</i> < 0.001); FLX had more responders than PBO (<i>p</i> = 0.004). 369 adverse events were reported for 171 participants, with 66% occurring in those taking fluoxetine. We found 32 serious adverse events (22 in those taking fluoxetine), which varied from original authors' reporting.ConclusionsOur reanalysis replicated the original investigators' reporting that COMB demonstrated the most robust outcomes and that FLX was not superior to PBO. In contrast to the original TADS Team's reporting, there was a higher level of harm uncovered in allocation groups taking fluoxetine, including 11 unreported suicide-related adverse events. Overall, the marked increase in harms among participants taking fluoxetine warrants further circumspection when prescribing it to adolescents.

International Journal of Risk & Safety in MedicineVol. 36(4)
Bangor University (GB), Flinders University (AU), University of Toronto (CA), Hospital for Sick Children (CA), SickKids Foundation (CA), The University of Adelaide (AU)
Laura and John Arnold Foundation
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
4.61
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.