Skip to main content
Full access
Communications and Updates
Published Online: 1 January 2012

Response to Letters

To the Editor: We thank Dr. Smith and Dr. Gould et al. for their interest in our study. The importance of conducting a power calculation based on suicide attempts instead of suicidal ideation with plans is a point well taken. Because the power calculator originally used for the article appears to have been removed from the Johns Hopkins web site, we identified a different power calculator and double-checked it with our in-house power calculation script. With N=94 and 50% dropout, and an attempt rate of 13% for lithium, the minimum hazard ratio for valproate detectable with 80% power is around 3.2. Based on these same assumptions for suicide events, the hazard ratio would be 2.2. In other words, based on these new calculations, it appears that the study was better powered than originally stated in the article. Note that these calculations 1) are based on the proportional hazards regression analysis and 2) assume exponential times to event or attempt, neither of which applies to this data set. We are currently working on a power calculator for the log-rank test based on resampling.
We concur with Dr. Smith that even a 20% effect size would be of great clinical utility. This would be especially true in the context of a randomized controlled trial, in which one can obviate problems such as confounding by indication (doctors shying away from giving lithium to those patients at risk for overdose), sample bias (many lithium clinic data come from samples with a mean age over 40, possibly excluding the high-risk patients who may have already died from suicide), and key clinical variables (routine monitoring of blood levels maximizes both patient adherence to treatment and the likelihood of therapeutic levels of medication). It is our opinion that subdividing the hazard curves into smaller intervals would be a stretch of the data, especially given that the curves cross each other more than once, casting doubt that observed variations in the position of the curves with regard to each other are caused by the pharmacologic properties of the drugs.

Footnote

Accepted for publication in October 2011.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 99

History

Accepted: October 2011
Published online: 1 January 2012
Published in print: January 2012

Authors

Details

Maria A. Oquendo, M.D.
Hanga C. Galfalvy, Ph.D.

Funding Information

The authors' disclosures accompany the original article.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share