Health-related quality of life in remitted psychotic depression✰.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with major depression continue to demonstrate deficits in health-related quality of life (HRQL) following remission. No data exist, however, regarding HRQL in remitted psychotic depression. In this study, we aimed to characterize HRQL in patients with psychotic depression receiving controlled pharmacotherapy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial studying continuation pharmacotherapy of psychotic depression. We compared participants' HRQL (measured using the SF-36) between baseline and remission and to population norms. We also compared SF-36 scores stratified by age and gender and examined the correlation between SF-36 scores and medical burden, depression score and neuropsychological performance in remission. RESULTS: SF-36 scores were significantly lower than population norms at baseline, but improved following remission to the level of population norms. Neither SF-36 scores nor magnitude of SF-36 improvement differed substantially between genders or between younger and older participants. In remission, depression scores were correlated with most SF-36 scales and medical burden was correlated with SF-36 scales measuring physical symptoms. Neuropsychological measures were generally not correlated with SF-36 scores. LIMITATIONS: This study was a secondary analysis not powered specifically to measure HRQL as an outcome variable and the SF-36 was the only HRQL measure used. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with remitted psychotic depression demonstrated levels of HRQL comparable to population norms, despite marked impairment in HRQL when acutely ill. This finding suggests that, when treated in a rigorous manner, many patients with this severe illness improve significantly from a clinical and HRQL perspective.

Establishing the cut-off score for remission and severity-ranges on the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS).

BACKGROUND: The Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) is a rating scale dedicated to the measurement of severity in psychotic depression (PD). The aim of this study was to establish the PDAS cut-off for remission of PD as well as PDAS score-ranges for mild, moderate, and severe PD. The secondary aim was to test how remission, as defined by the PDAS, would perform as outcome measure when applied to the data from a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) in PD. METHODS: The study was based on data from the Study of Pharmacotherapy in Psychotic Depression (STOP-PD). The cut-off for remission on the PDAS and the severity-ranges for mild, moderate, and severe PD were defined using the Clinical Global Impression - Severity scale (CGI-S) as reference by means of pair-wise receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Subsequently, it was tested whether remission on the PDAS could separate the effects of Olanzapine+Sertraline vs. Olanzapine+Placebo through an intention-to-treat, mixed-effects logistic regression of the data from STOP-PD. RESULTS: According to the ROC analyses, the ideal cut-off for remission of PD was a PDAS total score <8, while the severity-ranges for mild, moderate and severe PD were 8-15, 16-23, and >23 respectively. When applying the PDAS total score <8 (remission) as outcome on the STOP-PD data, treatment with Olanzapine+Sertraline performed significantly better than Olanzapine+Placebo (p<0.001). LIMITATIONS: The STOP-PD was not designed specifically to answer the research questions of the present study. CONCLUSIONS: According to this study, a total score <8 on the PDAS corresponds to remission of PD.

Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have indicated that the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), consisting of the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and 5 psychosis items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), is a valid measure for the severity of psychotic depression. The aim of this study was to subject the PDAS, and its depression (HAM-D6) and psychosis (BPRS5) subscales to further validation. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with psychotic depression at Danish psychiatric hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews. Video recordings of these interviews were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists (global severity rating of psychotic depression, depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms) and by two young physicians (rating on 27 symptom items, including the 11 PDAS items). The clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS and its subscales was investigated by Spearman correlation analysis of the global severity ratings and the PDAS, HAM-D6, and BPRS5 total scores. The unidimensionality of the scales was tested by item response theory analysis (Mokken). RESULTS: Ratings from 39 participants with unipolar psychotic depression and nine participants with bipolar psychotic depression were included in the analysis. The Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the PDAS, HAM-D6 and BPRS5 were clinically valid (correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.001) and responsive (correlation coefficients from 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) measures of psychotic depression. According to the Mokken analysis, all three scales were unidimensional. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical validity, responsiveness and unidimensionality of the PDAS and its subscales were confirmed in an independent sample of patients with psychotic depression.

Measuring treatment response in psychotic depression: the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) takes both depressive and psychotic symptoms into account.

BACKGROUND: There is no established psychometric instrument dedicated to the measurement of severity in psychotic depression (PD). The aim of this study was to investigate whether a new composite rating scale, the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), covering both the psychotic and the depressive domains of PD, could detect differences in effect between two psychopharmacological treatment regimens. METHODS: We reanalyzed the data from the Study of Pharmacotherapy of Psychotic Depression (STOP-PD), which compared the effect of Olanzapine+Sertraline (n=129) versus Olanzapine+Placebo (n=130). The response to the two regimens was compared using both a mixed effects model and effect size statistics on the total scores of three rating scales: the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17), its 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6), and the 11-item PDAS consisting of the HAM-D6 plus five items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale covering psychotic symptoms. RESULTS: According to both statistical approaches, the PDAS, the HAM-D17 and the HAM-D6 were all able to detect significant differences in treatment effect between Olanzapine+Sertraline and Olanzapine+Placebo (Olanzapine+Sertraline being superior). Notably, 45% of the trial participants were at least "probable psychotic" at their last assessment in the trial. LIMITATIONS: The STOP-PD was not designed specifically to answer the research questions of the present study. CONCLUSIONS: The Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) is a sensitive measure of treatment response in PD. The fact that 45% of the patients still experienced psychotic symptoms at their last trial assessment emphasizes the need to include items pertaining to psychotic symptoms in rating scales for PD.

A delusion assessment scale for psychotic major depression: Reliability, validity, and utility.

BACKGROUND: Although delusions are the hallmark of major depression with psychotic features, a scale to measure the intensity of beliefs across multiple delusional domains in this condition has been unavailable. The development and assessment of the Delusional Assessment Scale (DAS) are described. METHODS: Scale items were selected initially based on previous studies of delusional ideation in schizophrenia. A three-point item to assess mood congruence was added. A 15-item scale was assessed in 92 subjects participating in the four-site collaborative study of the pharmacotherapy of major depression with psychotic features. Maximum likelihood method was used to determine scale factors. The internal consistency of these factors was determined. Comparisons between scale scores and ratings from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (Overall and Gorham 1962) were used to assess convergent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: The data were fit by a five-factors model (impact, conviction, disorganization, bizarreness, and extension). Inter-rater reliability of the five factors ranged from .77 for conviction and .74 for impact to .37 for disorganization. Internal consistency for each of the five factors was > or =.72. Scores on specific domains were significantly correlated with the BPRS unusual thought content item and positive symptom subscale scores. CONCLUSIONS: The DAS is a reliable measure of 5 delusional domains.