Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity and Stability questionnaire (RIPoSt-40) assessing emotional dysregulation: Development, reliability and validity.

BACKGROUND: Emotional dysregulation (ED) is a heterogenous construct with great relevance in psychiatric research and clinical practice. In the present study, we validated a 40-items version of the Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity and Stability questionnaire (RIPoSt-40), a self-report measure of ED. METHODS: A non-clinical sample (N = 396) and two clinical samples of patients with cyclothymia (N = 120) and ADHD (N = 54) were recruited. Items were selected and subscales were derived based on inter-item correlations and PCA with promax rotation in the non-clinical sample. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subsample (N = 60). Internal consistency and concurrent validity with TEMPS-M factors were evaluated in each sample. The three groups results were compared to ascertain discriminant validity. RESULTS: Four subscales were identified as measures of affective instability, emotional impulsivity, negative and positive emotionality. The first three subscales also sum up to a negative ED score comprising thirty items. Measures of reliability (test-retest r = 0.71-0.84) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.72-0.95) were generally high. Concurrent validity was supported by correlations with TEMPS-M factors. Discriminant validity was significant (p < 0.001) with cyclothymic and ADHD patients showing higher scores for each subscale, except for positive emotionality. LIMITATIONS: The non-clinical sample was recruited through a web-survey and mainly included young and highly educated subjects. Mood and anxiety comorbidity of the clinical samples were not taken into consideration. CONCLUSION: RIPoSt-40 questionnaire has proved to be a valid, reliable and useful tool to assess ED both in clinical and non-clinical contexts.

Mood spectrum comorbidity in patients with anorexia and bulimia nervosa.

PURPOSE: To investigate the presence of mood spectrum signs and symptoms in patients with anorexia nervosa, restricting subtype (AN-R) or bulimia nervosa (BN). METHOD: 55 consecutive female patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for eating disorders (EDs) not satisfying DSM-IV criteria for Axis I mood disorders were evaluated with the Lifetime Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) and the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). The MOODS-SR explored the subthreshold comorbidity for mood spectrum symptoms in patients not reaching the threshold for a mood disorder Axis I diagnosis. MOODS-SR included 161 items. Separate factor analyses of MOODS-SR identified 6 'depressive factors' and 9 'manic-hypomanic factors'. RESULTS: The mean total score of MOODS-SR was significantly higher in BN than in AN-R patients (97.5 ± 25.4 vs 61.1 ± 38.5, respectively; p = 0.0001). 63.6 % of the sample (n = 35) endorsed the threshold of ≥61 items, with a statistically significant difference between AN-R and BN (39.3 % vs 88.9 %; χ 2 = 14.6; df = 1; p = 0.0001). Patients with BN scored significantly higher than AN-R patients on several MOODS-SR factors: (a) MOODS-SR depressive component: 'depressive mood' (11.2 ± 7.4 vs 16.0 ± 5.8; p < 0.05), 'psychomotor retardation' (5.4 ± 5.6 vs 8.9 ± 3.8; p = 0.003), 'psychotic features' (2.0 ± 1.8 vs 4.1 ± 1.6; p = 0.001), 'neurovegetative symptoms' (5.0 ± 2.6 vs 7.7 ± 1.7; p = 0.001); (b) MOODS-SR manic/hypomanic component: 'psychomotor activation' (4.3 ± 3.6 vs 7.4 ± 3.1; p = 0.002), 'mixed instability' (1.0 ± 1.5 vs 2.0 ± 1.6; p < 0.05), 'mixed irritability' (2.5 ± 1.8 vs 3.7 ± 1.6; p < 0.05), 'inflated self-esteem' (1.1 ± 1.4 vs 2.1 ± 1.6; p < 0.05), and 'wastefulness/recklessness' (1.0 ± 1.4 vs 2.0 ± 1.2; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: MOODS-SR identifies subthreshold mood signs/symptoms among patients with AN-R, and BN and with no Axis I comorbidity for mood disorders, and provides a better definition of clinical phenotypes.

Issues in the management of acute agitation: how much current guidelines consider safety?

Agitated behavior constitutes up to 10% of emergency psychiatric interventions. Pharmacological tranquilization is often used as a valid treatment for agitation but a strong evidence base does not underpin it. Available literature shows different recommendations, supported by research data, theoretical considerations, or clinical experience. Rapid tranquilization (RT) is mainly based on parenteral drug treatment and the few existing guidelines on this topic, when suggesting the use of first generation antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, include drugs with questionable tolerability profile such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, midazolam, and lorazepam. In order to systematically evaluate safety concerns related to the adoption of such guidelines, we reviewed them independently from principal diagnosis while examining tolerability data for suggested treatments. There is a growing evidence about safety profile of second generation antipsychotics for RT but further controlled studies providing definitive data in this area are urgently needed.