Rush Aj

The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (IDS-C) and Self-Report (IDS-SR), and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (QIDS-C) and Self-Report (QIDS-SR) in public sector patients with mood disorders: a psychometric evaluation.

BACKGROUND The present study provides additional data on the psychometric properties of the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) and of the recently developed Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), a brief 16-item symptom severity rating scale that was derived from the longer form. Both the IDS and QIDS are available in matched clinician-rated (IDS-C30; QIDS-C16) and self-report (IDS-SR30; QIDS-SR16) formats. METHOD The patient samples included 544 out-patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and 402 out-patients with bipolar disorder (BD) drawn from 19 regionally and ethnicically diverse clinics as part of the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). Psychometric analyses including sensitivity to change with treatment were conducted. RESULTS Internal consistencies (Cronbachs alpha) ranged from 0.81 to 0.94 for all four scales (QIDS-C16, QIDS-SR16, IDS-C30 and IDS-SR30) in both MDD and BD patients. Sad mood, involvement, energy, concentration and self-outlook had the highest item-total correlations among patients with MDD and BD across all four scales. QIDS-SR16 and IDS-SR30 total scores were highly correlated among patients with MDD at exit (c = 0.83). QIDS-C16 and IDS-C30 total scores were also highly correlated among patients with MDD (c = 0.82) and patients with BD (c = 0.81). The IDS-SR30, IDS-C30, QIDS-SR16, and QIDS-C16 were equivalently sensitive to symptom change, indicating high concurrent validity for all four scales. High concurrent validity was also documented based on the SF-12 Mental Health Summary score for the population divided in quintiles based on their IDS or QIDS score. CONCLUSION The QIDS-SR16 and QIDS-C16, as well as the longer 30-item versions, have highly acceptable psychometric properties and are treatment sensitive measures of symptom severity in depression.

Residual symptoms after remission of major depressive disorder with citalopram and risk of relapse: a STAR*D report

BACKGROUND Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who experience full symptomatic remission after antidepressant treatment still have residual depressive symptoms. We describe the types and frequency of residual depressive symptoms and their relationship to subsequent depressive relapse after treatment with citalopram in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial. METHOD Participants in primary (n=18) and psychiatric (n=23) practice settings were openly treated with citalopram using measurement-based care for up to 14 weeks and follow-up for up to 1 year. We assessed 943 (32.8% of 2876) participants who met criteria for remission to determine the proportions with individual residual symptoms and any of the nine DSM-IV criterion symptom domains to define a major depressive episode. At each visit, the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) and the self-report Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating (FIBSER) scale were used to assessed depressive symptoms and side-effects respectively. RESULTS More than 90% of remitters had at least one residual depressive symptom (median=3). The most common were weight increase (71.3%) and mid-nocturnal insomnia (54.9%). The most common residual symptom domains were sleep disturbance (71.7%) and appetite/weight disturbance (35.9%). Those who remitted before 6 weeks had fewer residual symptoms at study exit than did later remitters. Residual sleep disturbance did not predict relapse during follow-up. Having a greater number of residual symptom domains was associated with a higher probability of relapse. CONCLUSIONS Patients with remission of MDD after treatment with citalopram continue to experience selected residual depressive symptoms, which increase the risk of relapse.

Painful physical symptoms and treatment outcome in major depressive disorder: a STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) report

BACKGROUND Painful physical symptoms (PPS) are both common and reduce the likelihood of remission in major depressive disorder (MDD), based upon results of clinical trials in selected populations. Whether PPS significantly contribute to poorer treatment outcome overall in primary or specialty psychiatric care settings remains unclear. METHOD Out-patients (n=2876) with MDD were treated in the first step of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial with citalopram up to 60 mg/day for up to 14 weeks. Presence of painful symptoms, as well as severity of depression, physical illness, and demographic and treatment factors were examined. Time to and overall rates of remission were analysed in relation to the presence of PPS. RESULTS Of the participants, 80% complained of PPS. These patients, both in primary and specialty psychiatric settings, had significantly lower remission rates and took longer to remit. Increasing severity of PPS was associated with greater physical illness burden, lower socio-economic status, absence of private insurance and being female, African-American or Hispanic. After adjustment for these factors, patients with PPS no longer had significantly poorer treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Presence and severity of PPS is an indicator of MDD that may have poorer treatment outcome with an initial selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. These poorer treatment outcomes are multifactorial, however, and are not explained by the presence and severity of pain per se.

Self-reported premenstrual exacerbation of depressive symptoms in patients seeking treatment for major depression

BACKGROUND Very little research has examined the frequency with which women with major depressive disorder experience premenstrual exacerbation (PME) of depression or the characteristics of those who report such worsening. The NIMH Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study provides a unique opportunity to evaluate PME in depressed women seeking treatment in primary care or psychiatric settings. METHOD This report presents data from the first 1500 participants enrolled in the STAR*D study. Premenopausal women with major depressive disorder were asked if they experienced a worsening of their depressive symptoms 5-10 days prior to menses. Those reporting PME were compared with those reporting no PME with regard to sociodemographic characteristics, course of illness features, symptom presentation, general medical co-morbidity, functional impairment, and quality of life. RESULTS Of 433 premenopausal women not taking oral contraceptives, 64% reported a premenstrual worsening of their depression. Women who reported PME had a longer duration of their current major depressive episode [30.7 (S.D. = 73.7) months versus 13.5 (S.D. = 13.2) months; p=0.001], as well as greater general medical co-morbidity. Women reporting PME were also more likely to endorse symptoms of leaden paralysis, somatic complaints, gastrointestinal complaints, and psychomotor slowing, and were less likely to endorse blunted mood reactivity. CONCLUSIONS PME is endorsed by the majority of premenopausal women with major depressive disorder and appears to be associated with a longer duration of depressive episode. PME is a common and important clinical issue deserving of further attention in both research and practice.

Measuring use of outpatient care among mentally ill individuals: a comparison of self reports and provider records

Abstract Psychiatric nurses administered structured interviews to 80 clients in a county mental health clinic. Clients were asked to describe their use of medical and psychiatric outpatient care services during a 180-day period. Responses were compared with medical records abstracted from a comprehensive listing of health care providers. Taken as a group, clients reported only slightly more visits than that found in medical records. Individually, however, client responses were poor predictors of visits reported in provider records. Those considered low utilizers by providers tended to overstate, and high utilizers tended to understate, the number of outpatient visits. Reporting validity did not vary with client demographic characteristics or psychiatric diagnoses.