ICD-11 and mental disorders: important changes, controversies, and future directions.

About a year and a half after publishing ICD-11, we aim to gather initial feedback, comments, opinions, and even recent study results from experts in the relevant fields through this collection. We hope to facilitate a preliminary summary of whether the new classification truly represents progress, and how it has changed treatment, and research of mental illnesses.

A factor analytic comparison of three commonly used depression scales (HAMD, MADRS, BDI) in a large sample of depressed inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying depression mainly relies on the use of depression scales, and understanding their factor structure is crucial for evaluating their validity. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis utilized prospectively collected data from a naturalistic study of 1014 inpatients with major depression. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were performed to test the psychometric abilities of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the self-rated Beck Depression Inventory. A combined factor analysis was also conducted including all items of all scales. RESULTS: All three scales showed good to very good internal consistency. The HAMD-17 had four factors: an "anxiety" factor, a "depression" factor, an "insomnia" factor, and a "somatic" factor. The MADRS also had four factors: a "sadness" factor, a neurovegetative factor, a "detachment" factor and a "negative thoughts" factor, while the BDI had three factors: a "negative attitude towards self" factor, a "performance impairment" factor, and a "somatic" factor. The combined factor analysis suggested that self-ratings might reflect a distinct illness dimension within major depression. CONCLUSIONS: The factors obtained in this study are comparable to those found in previous research. Self and clinician ratings are complementary and not redundant, highlighting the importance of using multiple measures to quantify depression.

Omega-3 fatty acids in bipolar patients with a low omega-3 index and reduced heart rate variability: the "BIPO-3" trial.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that a low omega-3 index may contribute to the low heart rate variability and the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in bipolar disorders. However, so far, no intervention trial with EPA and DHA has been conducted in bipolar patients attempting to increase their heart rate variability. METHODS: 119 patients with bipolar disorder according to DSM-IV were screened, with 55 euthymic bipolar patients-owing to inclusion criteria (e.g. low omega-3 index (< 6%), SDNN < 60 ms.)-being enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, 12-week parallel study design with omega-3 fatty acids (4 capsules of 530 mg EPA, 150 mg DHA) or corn oil as a placebo, in addition to usual treatment. Heart rate variability as well as the omega-3 index were measured at baseline and at the endpoint of the study. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (omega-3: n = 23, corn oil: n = 19) successfully completed the study after 12 weeks. There was a significant increase in the omega-3 index (value at endpoint minus value at baseline) in the omega-3 group compared to the corn oil group (p < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in the change of the SDNN (value at endpoint minus value at baseline) between the treatment groups (p = 0.22). In addition, no correlation between changes in SDNN and change in the omega-3 index could be detected in the omega-3 group (correlation coefficient = 0.02, p = 0.94) or the corn oil group (correlation coefficient = - 0.11, p = 0.91). Similarly, no significant differences between corn oil and omega-3 group regarding the change of LF (p = 0.19), HF (p = 0.34) and LF/HF ratio (p = 0.84) could be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: In our randomized, controlled intervention trial in euthymic bipolar patients with a low omega-3 index and reduced heart rate variability no significant effect of omega-3 fatty acids on SDNN or frequency-domain measures HF, LF and LF/HF ratio could be detected. Possible reasons include, among others, the effect of psychotropic medication present in our trial and/or the genetics of bipolar disorder itself. Further research is needed to test these hypotheses. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00891826. Registered 01 May 2009-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00891826.

Chronic vs non-chronic depression in psychiatric inpatient care - Data from a large naturalistic multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Around 20% - 30% of depressed individuals experience a chronic form of depression lasting two or more years. This naturalistic study investigates the characteristics and the course of chronic depressed patients (CD) during standard antidepressant treatment in comparison to not chronically depressed (NCD) patients. METHODS: Data of 954 patients were drawn from the prospective naturalistic, multicenter study of the German research network on depression, CD was met as classifier by 113 patients (11.8%), whereas 841 patients (88.2%) had non-chronic courses (NCD). RESULTS: CD was significantly associated with a low age at onset, use of benzodiazepines, psychotherapy at baseline, substance abuse, a depressive personality disorder and a low degree of extraversion. CD patients showed a longer hospital stay, lower remission rates, increased rates of suicidal ideation as well as higher depression scores at discharge. In addition, individuals with chronic depression continued to obtain higher neuroticism scores and lower extraversion scores at discharge. LIMITATION: Results were assessed by a post-hoc analysis, based on prospectively collected data. CONCLUSION: CD patients have an inferior outcome in clinical measures as well as personality dimensions (i.e. low extraversion) compared to non-CD patients. These findings support the notion that CD patients entering a setting of standard psychiatric inpatient care will show less benefit compared to non-CD patients, and that this difference as such may be used as a stratifying marker for providing specialized psychiatric treatment with optimized pharmacological and psychotherapeutic protocols.

60 Years of Combining Tranylcypromine: A Systematic Review of Available Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Tranylcypromine is the only irreversible monoamine oxidase inhibitor that is approved in the United States and in Europe for the management of treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. Comprehensive data in the literature regarding the efficacy and tolerability of tranylcypromine (TCP) combination strategies have not been systematically investigated yet. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of available literature based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Study types considered eligible for inclusion were studies that reported information on efficacy and/or tolerability/adverse effects of pharmacological TCP add-on or coadministration strategies among people with psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: Ninety-six articles were included in qualitative analyses. A relevant body of evidence shows that TCP combined with first- and second-generation antipsychotics seems relatively safe and might have beneficial effects in some patients with depressive disorders, although caution is needed with some second-generation antipsychotics that have proserotonergic activity. Although evidence is not entirely consistent, amitriptyline as add-on agent might be efficacious and associated with a low rate of severe adverse events. Although available data from case reports are scarce, certain other agents, such as trazodone, but also lithium, seem to have a good risk-benefit profile with regard to TCP that should be further investigated in the context of high-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Any combination of a psychotropic with TCP should be preceded by an evaluation of drug-to-drug interaction and an informed consent process and followed by close monitoring. Before any combination strategy, doctors should reevaluate factors of pseudo-treatment resistance, such as rapid-metabolizing status, noncompliance, trauma, alternative diagnosis, or drug abuse.

Combining machine learning algorithms for prediction of antidepressant treatment response.

OBJECTIVES: Predictors for unfavorable treatment outcome in major depressive disorder (MDD) applicable for treatment selection are still lacking. The database of a longitudinal multicenter study on 1079 acutely depressed patients, performed by the German research network on depression (GRND), allows supervised and unsupervised learning to further elucidate the interplay of clinical and psycho-sociodemographic variables and their predictive impact on treatment outcome phenotypes. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES: Treatment response was defined by a change of HAM-D 17-item baseline score ≥50% and remission by the established threshold of ≤7, respectively, after up to eight weeks of inpatient treatment. After hierarchical symptom clustering and stratification by treatment subtypes (serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, antipsychotic, and lithium augmentation), prediction models for different outcome phenotypes were computed with random forest in a cross-center validation design. In total, 88 predictors were implemented. RESULTS: Clustering revealed four distinct HAM-D subscores related to emotional, anxious, sleep, and appetite symptoms, respectively. After feature selection, classification models reached moderate to high accuracies up to 0.85. Highest accuracies were observed for the SSRI and TCA subgroups and for sleep and appetite symptoms, while anxious symptoms showed poor predictability. CONCLUSION: Our results support a decisive role for machine learning in the management of antidepressant treatment. Treatment- and symptom-specific algorithms may increase accuracies by reducing heterogeneity. Especially, predictors related to duration of illness, baseline depression severity, anxiety and somatic symptoms, and personality traits moderate treatment success. However, prospectives application of machine learning models will be necessary to prove their value for the clinic.

What happens with schizophrenia patients after their discharge from hospital? Results on outcome and treatment from a "real-world" 2-year follow-up trial.

Aim of the study was to examine the course of schizophrenia patients within 2 years after discharge. Within a multicenter study of the German Competence Network on Schizophrenia, patients suffering from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder were examined regarding their psychopathological improvement, tolerability, and the treatment regime applied during hospitalization and a 2-year follow-up period. Response, remission, the level of everyday functioning, and relapse were furthermore evaluated during the follow-up period using established definitions for these outcome domains. The psychopharmacological treatment was specifically evaluated in terms of a potential association with relapse. 149 patients were available for analysis, with 65% of the patients being in response, 52% in symptomatic remission, and 64% having a satisfiable everyday functioning 2 years after their discharge from hospital. Despite these favorable outcome rates, 63% of the patients suffered from a relapse within the 2-year follow-up period with 86% of these patients being rehospitalized. Discharge non-responder and non-remitter were twice as likely to relapse during follow-up. A significant decrease of side-effects was observed with negligible rates of extrapyramidal side-effects, sedation, and weight gain during follow-up. Patients receiving treatment with atypical antipsychotics were found to have the lowest risk to relapse (p < 0.0001). The results highlight the natural and unsteady course of schizophrenia in most patients underlining the need to develop more specific treatment strategies ensuring ongoing stability and preventing relapse.

Remission in schizophrenia - What are we measuring? Comparing the consensus remission criteria to a CGI-based definition of remission and to remission in major depression.

BACKGROUND: Despite being recommended for use in clinical trials, the consensus remission criteria were found to leave patients with persisting symptoms, relevant areas of functional impairment and a decreased sense of wellbeing. Therefore, to evaluate the appropriateness of the schizophrenia consensus criteria, a definition of remission based on the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) was developed and remitter subgroups were compared. METHODS: 239 patients with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder were evaluated regarding their remission status after inpatient treatment. Remission in schizophrenia was defined according to the symptom-severity component of the consensus criteria by Andreasen et al. and a CGI based definition was calculated using sensitivity and specificity using receiver operating curves (asymptomatic remitter). Both remitter groups (schizophrenia consensus versus asymptomatic remitters) were compared regarding different clinical variables at discharge as well as the likelihood to relapse within a 1-year follow-up period. Both schizophrenia remitter subgroups were compared to remitters in major depression as a reference value. RESULTS: Following the consensus criteria, 63% of the schizophrenia patients were in remission compared to only 18% following the asymptomatic criterion. The schizophrenia consensus remitters were less likely to be concurrent treatment responders (p < 0.0001), had a significantly greater illness severity (p < 0.0001) and less functioning (p = 0.0358) as well as a significantly greater risk to relapse (p = 0.0174) compared to the schizophrenia asymptomatic remitters as well as the depressed remitters. CONCLUSION: It should be critically re-evaluated if the currently proposed consensus criteria are adequate to measure what is traditionally understood to be remission.

Subtypes of depression and their overlap in a naturalistic inpatient sample of major depressive disorder.

Subtyping depression is important in order to further delineate biological causes of depressive syndromes. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and outcome characteristics of distinct subtypes of depression and to assess proportion and features of patients fulfilling criteria for more than one subtype. Melancholic, atypical and anxious subtypes of depression were assessed in a naturalistic sample of 833 inpatients using DSM-IV specifiers based on operationalized criteria. Baseline characteristics and outcome criteria at discharge were compared between distinct subtypes and their overlap. A substantial proportion of patients (16%) were classified with more than one subtype of depression, 28% were of the distinct anxious, 7% of the distinct atypical and 5% of the distinct melancholic subtype. Distinct melancholic patients had shortest duration of episode, highest baseline depression severity, but were more often early improvers; distinct anxious patients had higher NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) neuroticism scores compared with patients with unspecific subtype. Melancholic patients with overlap of anxious features had worse treatment outcome compared to distinct melancholic and distinct anxious subtype. Distinct subtypes differed in only few variables and patients with overlap of depression subtypes may have independent clinical and outcome characteristics. Studies investigating biological causes of subtypes of depression should take influence of features of other subtypes into account.

A standardized stepwise drug treatment algorithm for depression reduces direct treatment costs in depressed inpatients - Results from the German Algorithm Project (GAP3).

BACKGROUND: In a previous single center study we found that a standardized drug treatment algorithm (ALGO) was more cost effective than treatment as usual (TAU) for inpatients with major depression. This report aimed to determine whether this promising initial finding could be replicated in a multicenter study. METHODS: Treatment costs were calculated for two time periods: the study period (from enrolment to exit from study) and time in hospital (from enrolment to hospital discharge) based on daily hospital charges. Cost per remitted patient during the study period was considered as primary outcome. RESULTS: 266 patients received ALGO and 84 received TAU. For the study period, ALGO costs were significantly lower than TAU (ALGO: 7 848 ± 6 065 €; TAU: 10 033 ± 7 696 €; p = 0.04). For time in hospital, costs were not different (ALGO: 14 734 ± 8 329 €; TAU: 14 244 ± 8 419 €; p = 0.617). Remission rates did not differ for the study period (ALGO: 57.9%, TAU: 50.0%; p=0.201). Remission rates were greater in ALGO (83.3%) than TAU (66.2%) for time in hospital (p = 0.002). Cost per remission was lower in ALGO (13 554 ± 10 476 €) than TAU (20 066 ± 15 391 €) for the study period (p < 0.001) and for time in hospital (ALGO: 17 582 ± 9 939 €; TAU: 21 516 ± 12 718 €; p = 0.036). LIMITATIONS: Indirect costs were not assessed. Different dropout rates in TAU and ALGO complicated interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment algorithms enhance the cost effectiveness of the care of depressed inpatients, which replicates our prior results in an independent sample.

How Effective Is Algorithm-Guided Treatment for Depressed Inpatients? Results from the Randomized Controlled Multicenter German Algorithm Project 3 Trial.

Background: Treatment algorithms are considered as key to improve outcomes by enhancing the quality of care. This is the first randomized controlled study to evaluate the clinical effect of algorithm-guided treatment in inpatients with major depressive disorder. Methods: Inpatients, aged 18 to 70 years with major depressive disorder from 10 German psychiatric departments were randomized to 5 different treatment arms (from 2000 to 2005), 3 of which were standardized stepwise drug treatment algorithms (ALGO). The fourth arm proposed medications and provided less specific recommendations based on a computerized documentation and expert system (CDES), the fifth arm received treatment as usual (TAU). ALGO included 3 different second-step strategies: lithium augmentation (ALGO LA), antidepressant dose-escalation (ALGO DE), and switch to a different antidepressant (ALGO SW). Time to remission (21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ≤9) was the primary outcome. Results: Time to remission was significantly shorter for ALGO DE (n=91) compared with both TAU (n=84) (HR=1.67; P=.014) and CDES (n=79) (HR=1.59; P=.031) and ALGO SW (n=89) compared with both TAU (HR=1.64; P=.018) and CDES (HR=1.56; P=.038). For both ALGO LA (n=86) and ALGO DE, fewer antidepressant medications were needed to achieve remission than for CDES or TAU (P<.001). Remission rates at discharge differed across groups; ALGO DE had the highest (89.2%) and TAU the lowest rates (66.2%). Conclusions: A highly structured algorithm-guided treatment is associated with shorter times and fewer medication changes to achieve remission with depressed inpatients than treatment as usual or computerized medication choice guidance.

Add-on Antidepressants in the Naturalistic Treatment of Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder - When, Who, and How?

The aim of this study was to evaluate antidepressant add-on treatment within the acute treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorder patients. Antidepressant add-on was evaluated in 365 patients within a naturalistic multicenter study. Patients with/without antidepressant add-on were compared regarding clinical and treatment-related variables, response and remission, and remission of depressive and negative symptoms. The efficacy of antidepressant add-on treatment was furthermore analyzed applying marginal structure models. Twenty-three percent of the patients received antidepressant add-on for a mean duration of 50.28 (33.42) days. Patients with the diagnosis of a schizoaffective disorder, multiple illness episodes, and a longer duration of their illness as well as those with significantly fewer baseline positive symptoms, more negative and depressive symptoms, more side effects, and less subjective well-being were augmented with antidepressants. At discharge no significant effect of antidepressant add-on treatment was observed in terms of a 25% improvement (p=0.2623), a 50% improvement (p=0.3946), remission (p=0.0552), or remission of depressive (p=0.6336) and negative symptoms (p=0.8756). Also, when analyzing marginal structure models considering the diagnostic subgroups, no significant effect was found. Add-on with antidepressants is common. A final recommendation in terms of this strategy's efficacy cannot be given.

Validity of remission and recovery criteria for schizophrenia and major depression: comparison of the results of two one-year follow-up naturalistic studies.

The objective of the present study was the application and comparison of common remission and recovery criteria between patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder (MDD) under inclusion of other outcome parameters. Patients with schizophrenia and MDD who were treated as inpatients at the beginning of the study were examined within two naturalistic follow-up trials from admission to discharge of an inpatient treatment period and the one-year follow-up assessment. PANSS criteria of the Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group (RSWG) for schizophrenia and HAMD criteria of the ACNP Task Force in MDD for depressive patients as well as the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) were applied as symptomatic outcome measures additionally to functional outcome parameters. Data of 153 schizophrenia patients and 231 patients with a MDD episode have been included in the analysis. More depressive than schizophrenia patients reached a threshold score of ≤3 on the CGI-S, indicating symptomatic remission at discharge and at the one-year follow-up. In contrast similar proportions of patients reaching symptomatic remission at discharge from inpatient treatment and at the one-year follow-up in the schizophrenia and in the MDD group were found when disease-related consensus criteria (RSWG vs. ACNP Task Force) were used. Functional remission and recovery rates were significantly lower in schizophrenia than in depressive patients at the one-year follow-up visit. Common outcome criteria for remission and recovery in schizophrenia and major depression were not directly comparable. However, our results indicated a significantly poorer outcome in schizophrenia than in depressive patients according to terms of remission and recovery.

Stability of remission rates in a 3-year follow-up of naturalistic treated depressed inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Remission is a common outcome of short-term trials and the main goal of acute and longterm treatment. The longitudinal stability of remission has rarely been investigated under naturalistic treatment conditions. METHODS: Naturalistic multisite follow-up study. Three-year symptomatic long-term outcome of initially hospitalized tertiary care patients (N = 784) with major depressive episodes. Remission rates as well as the switch rates between remission and non-remission were reported. RESULTS: After one, two and three years 62 %, 59 % and 69 % of the observed patients met criteria for remission. During the follow-up 88 % of all patients achieved remission. 36 % of maintained remission from discharge to 3-years, 12 % of all patients never reached remission and 52 % percent showed a fluctuating course switching from remission to non-remission and vice versa. There was considerable transition between remission and non-remission. For example, from discharge to 1 year, from 1 to 2, and from 2 to 3 years 25 %, 21 % and 11 % lost remission. CONCLUSION: Cumulative outcome rates are encouraging. Absolute rates at predefined endpoints as well as the fluctuations between these outcomes reflect the variable and chronic nature of major depression.

[Diagnosis of Metabolic Risk Factors in Psychiatric Inpatients]. / Diagnostik metabolischer Risikofaktoren bei stationär-psychiatrischen Patienten.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals suffering from mental illness have one to two decades reduced life expectancy. The increased morbidity and mortality is mainly due to cardiometabolic disorders. Despite these numbers, international studies give evidence that diagnoses and treatment of metabolic risk factors in psychiatric patients is insufficient. We assume that in Germany metabolic risk factors are also underdiagnosed and insufficiently treated. METHODS: We tested for the frequency of diagnoses of the metabolic risk factors obesity, nicotine dependence and abuse, disorders of lipid metabolism, hypertension and diabetes in 139 307 cases of residential treatment and semi-residential care in 47 psychiatric hospitals in Germany in the year 2012. Data were derived from the VIPP(indicators of treatment quality in psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine)-project, a project that comprises the routine data of psychiatric hospitals, that are sent to the InEK (institute for the lump sum payment system for hospitals). Frequencies were compared with prevalence of metabolic risk factors in the German population and prevalences of metabolic risk factors found in psychiatric patients in international studies. RESULTS: In particular obesity (2.8 %), disorders of lipid metabolism (2.8 %) and nicotin dependence (4.2 %) were underdiagnosed. We assume that also diabetes (6.8 %) and hypertension (17.7 %) were underdiagnosed. CONCLUSION: The results give evidence that metabolic risk factors are underdiagnosed and possibly insufficiently treated in German psychiatric hospitals. We cannot exclude that the results might also be due to poor documentation. It remains to be seen if the introduction of the PEPP (the new lump sum payment system in German psychiatry) will heighten the level of attention for metabolic risk factors and their treatment.

[Incidence and Costs of 1:1 Care in Psychiatric Hospitals in Germany - A Descriptive Analysis Based on the VIPP Project Data Set]. / Häufigkeit und Kosten der 1:1-Betreuung in der Erwachsenenpsychiatrie in Deutschland - Eine deskriptive Analyse anhand des VIPP-Datensatzes.

OBJECTIVE: 1:1 care is applied for patients requiring close psychiatric monitoring and care like patients with acute suicidality. The article describes the frequency of 1:1 care across different diagnoses and age groups in German psychiatric hospitals. METHODS: The analysis was based on the VIPP Project from the years 2011 and 2012. A total of 47 hospitals with more than 120,000 cases were included. Object of the analysis was the OPS code 9-640.0 1:1 care. The evaluation was performed on case level. RESULTS: Data of 47 hospitals were included. Of the 121,454 cases evaluated in 2011 3.8 % documented a 1:1 care within the meaning of OPS 9-640.0 additional code. Of the 66 245 male cases a 1:1 care was documented in 3.5 % and the 55 207 female cases was 4.1 %. Compared to 2011, the proportion of 1:1 care in 2012 rose to 4.8 %. CONCLUSION: The results show that 1:1 care is frequently applied in German psychiatric hospitals. The Data of the VIPP project have proven to be a useful tool to gain information on the frequency of cost-intensive interventions in German psychiatric hospitals. Further analyses should create the possibility of evaluation at the level of the individual codes.

The FKBP5 polymorphism rs1360780 influences the effect of an algorithm-based antidepressant treatment and is associated with remission in patients with major depression.

OBJECTIVE: The FKBP5-gene influences the HPA-system by modulating the sensitivity of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). The polymorphism rs1360780 has been associated with response in studies with heterogeneous antidepressant treatment. In contrast, several antidepressant studies with standardized antidepressant treatment could not detect this effect. We therefore compared patients with standardized vs naturalistic antidepressant treatment to (a) investigate a possible interaction between FKBP5-genotype and treatment mode and (b) replicate the effect of the FKBP5-genotype on antidepressant treatment outcome. METHODS: A total of 298 major depressive disorder (MDD) inpatients from the multicentred German project and the Zurich Algorithm Project were genotyped for their FKBP5 status. Patients were treated as usual (n=127) or according to a standardized algorithm (n=171). Main outcome criteria was remission (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-21<10). RESULTS: We detected an interaction of treatment as usual (TAU) treatment and C-allele with the worst outcome for patients combining those two factors (HR=0.46; p=0.000). Even though C-allele patients did better when treated in the structured, stepwise treatment algorithm (SSTR) group, we still could confirm the influence of the FKBP5-genotype in the whole sample (HR=0.52; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to show an interaction between a genetic polymorphism and treatment mode. Patients with the C-allele of the rs1360780 polymorphism seem to benefit from a standardized antidepressant treatment.

Challenging the understanding of significant improvement and outcome in schizophrenia - the concept of reliable and clinically significant change methods.

Significant changes of schizophrenia patients during inpatient treatment were evalutaed and compared to established outcome criteria. The concept of reliable and clinically significant change methods was applied to three hundred and ninety-six patients suffering from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. First, information on whether or not the change of the patient's condition is sufficient in order to declare that it is beyond a measurement error or random effect (= reliable change) was evaluated and in a second step it was observed if the reliable change was clinically meaningful (= clinically significant change). Different Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia (PANSS) thresholds were applied to define the clinically significant change (40, 45 and 50 points). These changes were then compared to established outcome criteria such as response and remission. Seventy-nine of the 396 patients (20%) showed a reliable improvement of symptoms, whereas 70% improved without achieving a reliable change of their condition. Of the 79 patients achieving a reliable change during treatment 8-15% concurrently showed a clinically significant change depending on the respective PANSS threshold. In contrast, 56% of the patients achieved response and 60% were in remission at discharge when applying established outcome criteria. Our results showed that a rather small number of schizophrenia patients were found to reliably change during inpatient treatment, with even less patients achieving a clinically significant change. The concept of reliable and clinically significant changes revealed to be a lot more stringent than today's established outcome criteria and should be critically evaluated regarding its use in schizophrenia patients.

Characteristics and differences in treatment outcome of inpatients with chronic vs. episodic major depressive disorders.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20-30% of patients with Major depressive disorder (MDD) develop a chronic course of their disease. Chronic depression is associated with increased health care utilisation, hospitalisation and a higher disease burden. We identified clinical correlates and differences in treatment response of chronic MDD (cMDD) patients compared with non-chronic episodic depression in a huge sample of depressive inpatients. METHODS: Data were collected from 412 inpatients who had been diagnosed with a major depressive episode (MDE; according to ICD-10) and scored 15 or higher on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HRSD-21). All subjects were participants in the German Algorithm Project, phase 3 (GAP3). Patients who were diagnosed with a MDE within the last two years or longer (herein referred to as CD) were compared with non-chronic depressive patients (herein referred to as non-CD). CD and non-CD patients were assessed for the following: psychosocial characteristics, symptom reduction from hospital admission to discharge, symptom severity at discharge, remission and response rates, and pharmacological treatment during inpatient treatment. The primary outcome measure was the HRSD-21. RESULTS: 13.6% (n=56) of patients met the criteria for chronic depression. Compared with non-CD patients, patients with CD showed increased axis I comorbidities (74% vs. 52%, χ(2) (1)=7.31, p=.02), a higher level of depressive symptoms at baseline and discharge, increased duration of inpatient treatment (64.8 vs. 53.3 days; t=2.86, p=.03) and lower response (HRSD: 60.0% vs. 72.0%; χ(2) (1)=3.61, p<.04; BDI: 40.5% vs. 54.2%; χ(2) (1)=3.56, p=.04) and remission rates (BDI 17.9.% vs. 29.7%; χ(2) (1)=3.42, p=.05. However, both groups achieved a comparable symptom reduction during inpatient treatment. The prescribed pharmacological strategy had no significant influence on treatment outcome in patients with CD. CONCLUSION: Inpatients with CD show higher symptom severity, lower response and remission rates and a longer duration of inpatient treatment, although they achieve comparable symptom reduction during treatment. These findings support the need to recognise CD and its defining characteristics as a distinct subclass of depression.

[The Quality of Inpatient Treatment of Elderly with Major Depression]. / Die Qualität der stationären Versorgung von Menschen mit Depressionen im Alter.

OBJECTIVE: There are highly effective treatments either in inpatient or day hospital settings available for elderly with major depression. It is important to consider some specific needs of elderly people (e. g. higher somatic comorbidities). METHODS: On the base of a large routine data set (139 307 patients in hospital treatment) differences between elderly and younger people with major depression are investigated. RESULTS: Elderly with major depression receive significantly less day hospital treatment and psychotherapy. Surprisingly, the mean length of hospital stay was significantly longer in younger patients with major depression. CONCLUSION: The results from such routine data should be interpreted with caution. Never the less our results suggest that there is still room for improvement for elderly people with major depression.