[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.176.107. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 287
Citations 0
Comment & Response
March 2015

Antidepressant Dose and Risk of Deliberate Self-harm—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Health Sciences, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Burlington, Massachusetts
  • 2Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 3Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(3):464. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7180

In Reply We welcome the opportunity Petersen and Nazareth provide with their letter to emphasize the importance of assessing the likely direction and quantifying the likely magnitude of biases in our study,1 including confounding by indication.

As we stated originally, although it is possible that unmeasured confounding accounts for the dose-response relationship we observed, it is not obvious what unmeasured factors might have led to meaningful confounding of our results. For example, our sensitivity analyses indicate that suicidal ideation prior to antidepressant therapy was not associated with the dose prescribed after adjusting for our propensity score, indicating that prior suicidality may be reasonably approximated by accounting for the patient characteristics at our disposal. Furthermore, our bias analyses demonstrate that an unmeasured confounder that could explain away the heightened risk of deliberate self-harm among youth initiating high-dose therapy would need to be more than 10-times as imbalanced across dose levels than were our measures of psychiatric comorbidity and more strongly associated with deliberate self-harm than our strongest predictor of deliberate self-harm (ie, a history of deliberate self-harm), even after accounting for the other risk factors included in our propensity score. Our bias analysis allows readers to speculate about the extent to which any purported unmeasured confounder satisfies these requirements.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×