Development and psychometric evaluation of the Bipolar Functional Status Questionnaire (BFSQ).

OBJECTIVES: Persistently impaired psychosocial functioning has been recognized in many individuals with bipolar disorder. However, existing measures of functional disability have been adapted for use in bipolar disorder based mainly on those developed for use in other conditions. The present study involved the development and validation of a new patient self-report measure specific to bipolar disorder, the Bipolar Functional Status Questionnaire (BFSQ). METHODS: Relevant constructs were identified, evaluated, and refined through an expert advisory panel in conjunction with patient interviews. Questionnaire items were vetted through iterative patient interviews. Psychometric properties were determined based on patient responses from implementation of the proposed 33-item questionnaire in an 11-site study of 596 patients with bipolar disorder across varied phases of illness. RESULTS: Eight constructs were identified as fundamental to functional status in bipolar disorder: cognitive function, sleep, role functioning, emotional functioning, energy/vitality, social functioning, personal management, and sexual functioning. Psychometric validation supported item reduction to a 24-item unidimensional scale, with high internal consistency (coefficient alpha's = 0.93-0.95), high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.82-0.89), strong convergent validity with other functional disability measures (r's > 0.70), and highly significant discriminant validity across illness phases, with large effect sizes (Cohen's d > 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The BFSQ is a psychometrically sound self-report measure that can be used to effectively quantify functional status across different clinical states in patients with bipolar disorder.

Agomelatine Drug Utilisation Study in Selected European Countries: A Multinational, Observational Study to Assess Effectiveness of Risk-Minimisation Measures.

BACKGROUND: Hepatotoxic reactions are an important identified risk listed in the agomelatine risk management plan. This post-authorisation safety study evaluated the effectiveness of additional risk-minimisation measures (aRMMs) for agomelatine. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate, among physicians prescribing agomelatine and their patients, liver function monitoring adherence, compliance with contraindications and patients' reasons for non-compliance with liver monitoring. METHODS: A non-interventional cohort study was conducted among adults initiating agomelatine in routine clinical practice in Denmark, France, Germany and Spain through a retrospective medical record abstraction (MRA) before and after implementation of aRMMs and a cross-sectional patient survey. RESULTS: Fifty-four sites contributed data on 437 and 404 patients in the before- and after-RMM periods, and 237 patients completed the survey. No patient had cirrhosis in either study period; 98.2% of patients in the before- and 98.0% in the after-RMM period had no active liver disease reported at initiation or during treatment. Compliance to contraindicated medications was > 99% in both periods. The adherence to the liver-monitoring regimen was similar in both periods (15.1% before RMM and 16.3% after RMM). In the after-RMM period, 25.2% of patients had a liver test before or at treatment initiation; 61.5% had a liver test during treatment. Among patients surveyed who did not have a blood test before treatment initiation or during treatment, the most frequently cited reason was a test ordered but not yet performed. CONCLUSIONS: The overall adherence to liver-monitoring recommendations remained weakly influenced by aRMMs. However, patients treated with agomelatine are in compliance with relevant contraindications.

Does Timing of Colon Procedures Affect Outcomes in D-IBS Trials?

BACKGROUND: Sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy is usually performed prior to enrollment into clinical trials of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Two main reasons are to rule out alternative diagnoses and to ensure that colitis is not present. However, the possible impact of a recent versus remote colon procedure on symptoms in IBS trials has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of timing of colon procedures on symptoms in IBS trials. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were conducted using placebo patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS in a phase 2 trial. Pain, frequency, consistency, and urgency were analyzed using repeated measures models during the first 7 days of treatment and over the entire 12-week treatment period. RESULTS: Fifty-two placebo patients were grouped by whether they had a colon exam performed between screening and randomization (Group 1) or had a normal colon procedure during the 3 years prior to screening for this trial (Group 2). Average screening symptom scores were comparable between the two groups. Evaluation of various symptoms showed that there were no consistent significant differences between the two groups in pain, frequency, consistency, or urgency. CONCLUSIONS: After the required 3-day post-procedure recovery period, there was no evidence that colonoscopy timing affected subsequent IBS symptoms.