Jennifer Martinez

Severity classification on the Hamilton depression rating scale

BACKGROUND Symptom severity as a moderator of treatment response has been the subject of debate over the past 20 years. Each of the meta- and mega-analyses examining the treatment significance of depression severity used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), wholly, or in part, to define severity, though the cutoff used to define severe depression varied. There is limited empirical research establishing cutoff scores for bands of severity on the HAMD. The goal of the study is to empirically establish cutoff scores on the HAMD in their allocation of patients to severity groups. METHODS Six hundred twenty-seven outpatients with current major depressive disorder were evaluated with a semi-structured diagnostic interview. Scores on the 17-item HAMD were derived from ratings according to the conversion method described by Endicott et al. (1981). The patients were also rated on the Clinical Global Index of Severity (CGI). Receiver operating curves were computed to identify the cutoff that optimally discriminated between patients with mild vs. moderate and moderate vs. severe depression. RESULTS HAMD scores were significantly lower in patients with mild depression than patients with moderate depression, and patients with moderate depression scored significantly lower than patients with severe depression. The cutoff score on the HAMD that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity was 17 for the comparison of mild vs. moderate depression and 24 for the comparison of moderate vs. severe depression. LIMITATIONS The present study was conducted in a single outpatient practice in which the majority of patients were white, female, and had health insurance. Although the study was limited to a single site, a strength of the recruitment procedure was that the sample was not selected for participation in a treatment study, and exclusion and inclusion criteria did not reduce the representativeness of the patient groups. The analyses were based on HAMD scores extracted from ratings on the SADS. However, we used Endicott et al.s (1981) empirically established formula for deriving a HAMD score from SADS ratings, and our results concurred with other small studies of the mean and median HAMD scores in severity groups. CONCLUSIONS Based on this large study of psychiatric outpatients with major depressive disorder we recommend the following severity ranges for the HAMD: no depression (0-7); mild depression (8-16); moderate depression (17-23); and severe depression (≥24).

Does the presence of one feature of borderline personality disorder have clinical significance? Implications for dimensional ratings of personality disorders.

OBJECTIVE In the draft proposal for DSM-5, the Work Group for Personality and Personality Disorders recommended that dimensional ratings of personality disorders replace DSM-IVs categorical approach toward classification. If a dimensional rating of personality disorder pathology is to be adopted, then the clinical significance of minimal levels of pathology should be established before they are formally incorporated into the diagnostic system because of the potential unforeseen consequences of such ratings. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examined the low end of the severity dimension and compared psychiatric outpatients with 0 or 1 DSM-IV criterion for borderline personality disorder on various indices of psychosocial morbidity. METHOD Three thousand two hundred psychiatric outpatients were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders. The present report is based on the 1,976 patients meeting 0 or 1 DSM-IV criterion for borderline personality disorder. RESULTS The reliability of determining if a patient was rated with 0 or 1 criterion for borderline personality disorder was good (κ = 0.70). Compared to patients with 0 borderline personality disorder criteria, patients with 1 criterion had significantly more current Axis I disorders (P < .001), suicide attempts (P < .01), suicidal ideation at the time of the evaluation (P < .001), psychiatric hospitalizations (P < .001), and time missed from work due to psychiatric illness (P < .001) and lower ratings on the Global Assessment of Functioning (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Low-severity levels of borderline personality disorder pathology, defined as the presence of 1 criterion, can be determined reliably and have validity.

Distinguishing bipolar II depression from major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder: demographic, clinical, and family history differences.

OBJECTIVE To (1) identify long-term trajectories of combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms over a 20-year period from 1983 to 2002 in veterans with and without combat stress reaction (CSR) and (2) identify social predictors of these trajectories. METHOD A latent growth mixture modeling analysis on PTSD symptoms was conducted to identify PTSD trajectories and predictors. PTSD was defined according to DSM-III and assessed through the PTSD Inventory. Israeli male veterans with (n = 369) and without (n = 306) CSR were queried at 1, 2, and 20 years after war about combat exposure, military unit support, family environment, and social reintegration. RESULTS For both study groups, we identified 4 distinct trajectories with varying prevalence across groups: resilience (CSR = 34.4%, non-CSR = 76.5%), recovery (CSR = 36.3%, non-CSR = 10.5%), delayed onset (CSR = 8.4%, non-CSR = 6.9%), and chronicity (CSR = 20.9%, non-CSR = 6.2%). Predictors of trajectories in both groups included perception of war threat (ORs = 1.59-2.47, P values ≤ .30), and negative social reintegration (ORs = 0.24-0.51, P values ≤ .047). Social support was associated with symptomatology only in the CSR group (ORs = 0.40-0.61, P values ≤ .045), while family coherence was predictive of symptomatology in the non-CSR group (OR = 0.76, P = .015) but not in the CSR group. CONCLUSIONS Findings confirmed heterogeneity of long-term sequelae of combat, revealing 4 trajectories of resilience, recovery, delay, and chronicity in veterans with and without CSR. Symptomatic trajectories were more prevalent for the CSR group, suggesting that acute functional impairment predicts pathological outcomes. Predictors of symptomatic trajectories included perceived threat and social resources at the family, network, and societal levels.

Comorbid bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder and history of suicide attempts.

Both bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder are associated with elevated rates of attempted suicide; however, no studies have examined whether there is an independent, additive risk for suicide attempts in patients diagnosed with both disorders. In the present study from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, 3,465 psychiatric outpatients were interviewed with semistructured interviews. Compared to the bipolar patients without borderline personality disorder, the patients diagnosed with both bipolar and borderline personality disorder were significantly more likely to have made a prior suicide attempt. The patients with borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder were nonsignificantly more likely than the borderline patients without bipolar disorder to have made a prior suicide attempt. Bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder were each associated with an increased rate of suicide attempts. The co-occurrence of these disorders conferred an additive risk, although the influence of borderline personality disorder was greater than that of bipolar disorder.

Further evidence that the cutoff to define remission on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale should be lowered

In 1991, the recommendations of a consensus conference were that a cutoff of 7 on the 17‐item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM‐D) be used to define remission from depression, and since then this has been the most commonly used definition of remission. The cutoff was not derived from empirical study. In the present report from the MIDAS project, we examined the level of current psychosocial morbidity in depressed patients identified as being in remission according to different thresholds on the 17‐item HAM‐D.

A clinically useful self-report measure of the DSM-5 mixed features specifier of major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND To acknowledge the clinical significance of manic features in depressed patients, DSM-5 included criteria for a mixed features specifier for major depressive disorder (MDD). In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project we modified our previously published depression scale to include a subscale assessing the DSM-5 mixed features specifier. METHODS More than 1100 psychiatric outpatients with MDD or bipolar disorder completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) supplemented with questions for the DSM-5 mixed features specifier (CUDOS-M). To examine discriminant and convergent validity the patients were rated on clinician severity indices of depression, anxiety, agitation, and irritability. Discriminant and convergent validity was further examined in a subset of patients who completed other self-report symptom severity scales. Test-retest reliability was examined in a subset who completed the CUDOS-M twice. We compared CUDOS-M scores in patients with MDD, bipolar depression, and hypomania. RESULTS The CUDOS-M subscale had high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, was more highly correlated with another self-report measure of mania than with measures of depression, anxiety, substance use problems, eating disorders, and anger, and was more highly correlated with clinician severity ratings of agitation and irritability than anxiety and depression. CUDOS-M scores were significantly higher in hypomanic patients than depressed patients, and patients with bipolar depression than patients with MDD. LIMITATIONS The study was cross-sectional, thus we did not examine whether the CUDOS-M detects emerging mixed symptoms when depressed patients are followed over time. Also, while we examined the correlation between the CUDOS-M and clinician ratings of agitation and irritability, we did not examine the association with a clinician measure of manic symptomatology such as the Young Mania Rating Scale CONCLUSIONS In the present study of a large sample of psychiatric outpatients, the CUDOS-M was a reliable and valid measure of the DSM-5 mixed features specifier for MDD.

An Integrated, Acceptance-Based Behavioral Approach for Depression With Social Anxiety: Preliminary Results.

Depression and social anxiety disorder (SAD) are highly comorbid, resulting in greater severity and functional impairment compared with each disorder alone. Although recently transdiagnostic treatments have been developed, no known treatments have addressed this comorbidity pattern specifically. Preliminary support exists for acceptance-based approaches for depression and SAD separately, and they may be more efficacious for comorbid depression and anxiety compared with traditional cognitive-behavioral approaches. The aim of the current study was to develop and pilot test an integrated acceptance-based behavioral treatment for depression and comorbid SAD. Participants included 38 patients seeking pharmacotherapy at an outpatient psychiatry practice, who received 16 individual sessions of the therapy. Results showed significant improvement in symptoms, functioning, and processes from pre- to post-treatment, as well as high satisfaction with the treatment. These results support the preliminary acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of this treatment in a typical outpatient psychiatry practice, and suggest that further research on this treatment in larger randomized trials is warranted.

A clinically useful social anxiety disorder outcome scale

Increasingly, emphasis is being placed on measurement-based care to improve the quality of treatment. Although much of the focus has been on depression, measurement-based care may be particularly applicable to social anxiety disorder (SAD) given its high prevalence, high comorbidity with other disorders, and association with significant functional impairment. Many self-report scales for SAD currently exist, but these scales possess limitations related to length and/or accessibility that may serve as barriers to their use in monitoring outcome in routine clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to develop and validate the Clinically Useful Social Anxiety Disorder Outcome Scale (CUSADOS), a self-report measure of SAD. The CUSADOS was designed to be reliable, valid, sensitive to change, brief, easy to score, and easily accessible, to facilitate its use in routine clinical settings. The psychometric properties of the CUSADOS were examined in 2415 psychiatric outpatients who were presenting for treatment and had completed a semi-structured diagnostic interview. The CUSADOS demonstrated excellent internal consistency, and high item-total correlations and test-retest reliability. Within a sub-sample of 381 patients, the CUSADOS possessed good discriminant and convergent validity as it was more highly correlated with other measures of SAD than with other psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, scores were higher in outpatients with a current diagnosis of SAD compared to those without a SAD diagnosis. Preliminary support also was obtained for the sensitivity to change of the CUSADOS in a sample of 15 outpatients receiving treatment for comorbid SAD and depression. Results from this validation study in a large psychiatric sample show that the CUSADOS possesses good psychometric properties. Its brevity and ease of scoring also suggest that it is feasible to incorporate into routine clinical practice.

Does DSM-IV already capture the dimensional nature of personality disorders?

OBJECTIVE Personality disorder research favors a dimensional representation of the personality disorders over categorical classification, and this is one of the central justifications for changing the diagnostic approach in DSM-5. However, recent research has suggested that the most important loss of information in a categorical system is the failure to account for subthreshold levels of pathology. DSM-IV can be considered to already accommodate a quasi-dimensional system insofar as individuals who do not meet the threshold for diagnosis can be noted to have traits of the disorder. In the present report, we examined 2 questions related to dimensional scoring of the personality disorders and the association between personality pathology and psychosocial morbidity: (1) Is the DSM-IV 3-point dimensional convention (absent, subthreshold traits, present) more strongly associated with indicators of psychosocial morbidity than a categorical approach toward diagnosis? and (2) How does the 3-point dimensional scoring convention compare to the 5-point system proposed for DSM-5 and to a criterion count approach in which the dimensional score represents the sum of the number of criteria present? METHOD From September 1997 to June 2008, 2,150 psychiatric outpatients were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders and measures of psychosocial morbidity. RESULTS The DSM-IV 3-point dimensional convention was more strongly associated with measures of psychosocial morbidity than was categorical diagnosis. There was no difference between the 3-point, 5-point, and criterion count methods of scoring the DSM-IV personality disorder dimensions. CONCLUSIONS Dimensional scoring of the DSM-IV personality disorders was more highly correlated with measures of psychosocial morbidity than was categorical classification. The DSM-IV 3-point rating convention was as valid as scoring methods using more finely graded levels of severity. These findings argue against changing the current DSM-IV diagnostic approach and instead advocate for the increased recognition that DSM-IV already includes a valid dimensional rating.

“Subthreshold” Depression: Is the Distinction Between Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified and Adjustment Disorder Valid?

OBJECTIVE Patients with clinically significant symptoms of depression who do not meet the criteria for major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder are considered to have subthreshold depression. According to DSM-IV, such patients should be diagnosed with depressive disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) if the development of the symptoms is not attributable to a stressful event or with adjustment disorder if the symptoms follow a stressor. Research on the treatment of subthreshold depression rarely addresses the distinction between depressive disorder NOS and adjustment disorder. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examined the validity of this distinction. METHOD From December 1995 to June 2011, 3,400 psychiatric patients presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital outpatient practice were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders and measures of psychosocial morbidity. RESULTS Slightly less than 10% (n = 300) of the 3,400 patients were diagnosed with depressive disorder NOS or adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The patients with depressive disorder NOS were significantly more often diagnosed with social phobia (P < .05) and a personality disorder (P < .01). The patients with depressive disorder NOS reported more anhedonia, increased appetite, increased sleep, and indecisiveness, whereas the patients with adjustment disorder reported more weight loss, reduced appetite, and insomnia. There was no significant difference between the groups in overall level of severity of depression or impaired functioning. The patients with depressive disorder NOS had a nonsignificantly elevated morbid risk of depression in their first-degree relatives. DISCUSSION Clinically significant subthreshold depression was common in psychiatric outpatients, and the present results support the validity of distinguishing between depressive disorder NOS and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Future studies of the treatment of subthreshold depression should account for this diagnostic distinction.