Clinical trials have identified numerous prescriptive predictors of mental disorder treatment response, ie, predictors of which treatments are best for which patients. However, none of these prescriptive predictors is strong enough alone to guide precision treatment planning. This has prompted growing interest in developing precision treatment rules (PTRs) that combine information across multiple prescriptive predictors, but this work has been much less successful in psychiatry than some other areas of medicine. Study designs and analysis schemes used in research on PTR development in other areas of medicine are reviewed, key challenges for implementing similar studies of mental disorders are highlighted, and recent methodological advances to address these challenges are described here.
Discovering prescriptive predictors requires large samples. Three approaches have been used in other areas of medicine to do this: conduct very large randomized clinical trials, pool individual-level results across multiple smaller randomized clinical trials, and develop preliminary PTRs in large observational treatment samples that are then tested in smaller randomized clinical trials. The third approach is most feasible for research on mental disorders. This approach requires working with large real-world observational electronic health record databases; carefully selecting samples to emulate trials; extracting information about prescriptive predictors from electronic health records along with other inexpensive data augmentation strategies; estimating preliminary PTRs in the observational data using appropriate methods; implementing pragmatic trials to validate the preliminary PTRs; and iterating between subsequent observational studies and quality improvement pragmatic trials to refine and expand the PTRs. New statistical methods exist to address the methodological challenges of implementing this approach.
Conclusions and Relevance
Advances in pragmatic precision psychiatry will require moving beyond the current focus on randomized clinical trials and adopting an iterative discovery-confirmation process that integrates observational and experimental studies in real-world clinical populations.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Kessler RC, Luedtke A. Pragmatic Precision Psychiatry—A New Direction for Optimizing Treatment Selection. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(12):1384–1390. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2500
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.