A clinically useful self-report measure of psychiatric patients' satisfaction with the initial evaluation.

Patient satisfaction is one component of the quality of care. Studies of satisfaction in samples of established patients are biased because dissatisfied patients are more likely to have dropped out of treatment. We, therefore, sought to develop a new instrument assessing patients' satisfaction with the initial psychiatric evaluation. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project we describe the development, reliability, and validity of the Clinically Useful Patient Satisfaction Scale (CUPSS). The CUPSS is a brief, self-administered questionnaire covering 3 areas: clinician's attitude and behavior, office environment and staff, and overall satisfaction. A sample of psychiatric outpatients (n=412) and partial hospital patients (n=500) completed the measure immediately after their initial meeting with the psychiatrist. The scale had high internal consistency, and all item-scale correlations were significant. All items were significantly correlated with each of the indicators of global satisfaction. There was sufficient variability in satisfaction ratings to detect differences amongst clinicians. The results of the present study of psychiatric outpatients and partial hospital patients indicate that the CUPSS was minimally to not at all burdensome to complete, it had good psychometric properties, and it can discriminate amongst clinicians.

Clinically useful screen for borderline personality disorder in psychiatric out-patients.

A total of 3674 psychiatric out-patients were evaluated with a semi-structured diagnostic interview for DSM-IV borderline personality disorder (BPD). The affective instability criterion had a sensitivity of 92.8%, higher than the sensitivities of the other eight BPD criteria. The negative predictive value of the affective instability criterion was 99%. We recommend that clinicians screen for BPD in the same way that they screen for other psychiatric disorders: by enquiring about a single feature of the disorder (i.e. affective instability), the presence of which identifies most patients with the disorder and the absence of which rules out the disorder.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria in late life depression antidepressant efficacy trials.

OBJECTIVE: The generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) has been questioned. No studies have examined the inclusion/exclusion criteria used in placebo-controlled studies of late life depression and compared them to the criteria used in non-late life AETs. METHOD: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of placebo-controlled AETs published from January, 1995 through December, 2014. We compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the 18 studies of late life depression to those used in non-late life depression. RESULTS: There were nine inclusion/exclusion criteria that were used in more than half of the late life depression AETs: minimum severity on a symptom severity scale (100.0%), significant suicidal ideation (77.8%), psychotic features during the current episode of depression or history of a psychotic disorder (94.4%), history of bipolar disorder (77.8%), diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse or dependence (83.3%), presence of a comorbid nondepressive, nonsubstance use Axis I disorder (55.6%), episode duration too short (66.7%), and an insufficient score on a cognitive screen (88.3%) or the presence of a cognitive disorder (55.6%). There were some differences between the late life and non-late life depression studies-use of a screening measure of cognitive functioning, presence of a cognitive disorder such as dementia, and the minimum depression severity cutoff score required at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion/exclusion criteria in AETs of late life depression were generally similar to the criteria used in non-late life depression AETs. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Psychiatric Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Placebo-Controlled Monotherapy Trials of Bipolar Depression: An Analysis of Studies of the Past 20 Years.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about the generalizability of pharmacotherapy efficacy trials to "real-world" patients have been raised for more than 40 years. Almost all of this literature has focused on treatment studies of major depressive disorder (MDD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to review the psychiatric inclusion and exclusion criteria used in placebo-controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of medications for bipolar depression (bipolar disorder efficacy trials [BDETs]) and compare the criteria used in BDETs with those used in efficacy trials of antidepressants to treat MDD (antidepressant efficacy trials [AETs]). METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases for articles published from January 1995 through December 2014. We identified 170 placebo-controlled AETs and 22 BDETs published during these 20 years. Two of the authors independently reviewed each article and completed a pre-specified information extraction form listing the psychiatric inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the study. RESULTS: Six inclusion/exclusion criteria were used in at least half of the BDETs: minimum severity on a depression symptom severity scale, significant suicidal ideation, diagnosis of alcohol or drug use disorder, presence of a comorbid nondepressive, nonsubstance use Axis I disorder, current episode of depression being too long, and absence of current manic symptoms. BDETs were significantly less likely than AETs to exclude patients with a history of psychotic features/disorders, borderline personality disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder and more likely to exclude individuals who scored too low on the first item of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Nearly two-thirds of the BDETs placed an upper limit on the duration of the current depressive episode, three times higher than the rate in the AETs. There was no difference on other variables between the AETs and BDETs. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to treatment studies of nonbipolar MDD, the treatment studies of bipolar depression frequently excluded patients with comorbid psychiatric and substance use disorders and insufficient severity of depressive symptoms as rated on standardized scales. These findings indicate that concerns about the generalizability of data from trials of recently approved medications for the treatment of bipolar depression are as relevant as the concerns that have been raised about studies of antidepressants for nonbipolar depression.

Does 'fear of dying' indicate a more severe presentation of panic disorder?

Research suggests a relationship between the presence of fearful cognitions and panic disorder (PD) severity. With little existing evidence addressing the clinical significance of individual panic-cognitions, the current study examined presentation and impairment differences among 331 outpatients with PD according to whether they experience "fear of dying" (FOD) during panic attacks. Patients reporting FOD (n=153) were compared to patients denying FOD (n=178) on variables indicating PD severity (e.g., number of symptoms) and psychiatric impairment (e.g., hospitalizations). PD patients with FOD reported a greater number of panic symptoms, agoraphobia diagnoses, and were more likely to be seeking treatment primarily for PD. We found no clinical impairment or comorbidity differences between groups. Results suggest that panic attacks with FOD are related to a more acute presentation of PD. Such results substantiate past research connecting cognitive distress and PD severity and further suggest that FOD may be particularly relevant to this relationship.

Variability in the substance use disorder exclusion criterion in antidepressant efficacy trials.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders are the most commonly excluded psychiatric disorder in antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs). In a recent review of AETs we noticed variability in the definition of the substance use disorder exclusion criterion. In the present report we examined in greater detail the variability in defining the substance use disorder exclusion criterion, the potential impact of this variability on excluding patients from an AET, and whether the definition of the criterion has changed in the past 20 years. METHODS: We identified 170 AETs published during the past 20 years and compared the studies published during the past 5 years (n=56) to the studies published during the 15 prior years (n=114). RESULTS: Substance abuse was more frequently used as an exclusion criterion than substance dependence. Six time frames have been used as the basis of exclusion, the most frequent being the past 12 months. The time frame had a greater impact on the number of patients who would be excluded than the abuse/dependence distinction. The definition of the substance use exclusion criterion was no different in the studies of the past 5 years compared to the prior 15 years. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the present analysis is that it was based on published placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants. CONCLUSION: Studies varied in whether abuse or dependence was the basis of exclusion, whether alcohol or illicit drugs or both were the basis of exclusion, and the time frame of the disorders' presence. We raise the question of whether the routine exclusion of patients with a substance use disorder should be reflected in a product's label.

Symptom Severity and the Generalizability of Antidepressant Efficacy Trials: Changes During the Past 20 Years.

The most commonly used inclusion/exclusion criterion in antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) is a minimum score on a symptom severity scale. In the present study, we reviewed placebo-controlled AETs published during the past 20 years to determine whether there has been a change in the symptom severity inclusion criterion threshold subsequent to publications that highlighted the unrepresentativeness of the depressed patients studied in AETs. We identified 170 AETs published during the past 20 years and compared the studies published during the past 5 years (2010-2104, n = 56) with the studies published during the previous 15 years (n = 114). The symptom severity threshold for inclusion has increased in the more recent cohort of studies. On the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, almost half of the studies of the past 5 years used a cutoff of 22 or greater to select patients versus less than one-fifth of the studies during the previous 15 years (44.0% vs 17.5%; χ(2) = 7.4; P < 0.01). Similarly, the cutoff on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale required for study inclusion has been higher in studies of the past 5 years with approximately three-quarters of the recent studies using a cutoff of at least 25, in contrast to one-quarter of the older studies (76.2% vs 25.0%; χ(2) = 8.2; P < 0.01). A significantly higher percentage of patients in our clinical practice would be excluded on the basis of the severity thresholds of the past 5 years (59.3 ± 13.5 vs 49.0 ± 15.1; t121 = 3.1; P < 0.005). These findings suggest that the results of AETs may not be applicable to less severely depressed patients who make up at least half of the patients treated in routine clinical practice. Questions are raised about the Food and Drug Administration labeling of antidepressants.

Problems in the Descriptions of the Psychiatric Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Publications of Antidepressant Efficacy Trials: A Qualitative Review and Recommendations for Improved Clarity.

We recently conducted a comprehensive review of the psychiatric inclusion and exclusion criteria used in 170 placebo-controlled antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) that were published between 1995 and 2014. In conducting this literature review, we identified a number of instances in which the descriptions of the inclusion/exclusion criteria were vague, redundant, or difficult to interpret. In the present article, we describe nine problems we encountered in our literature review. We recommend that future publications follow the examples found in a few studies in which the inclusion/exclusion criteria are clearly defined and listed in a table.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria in placebo-controlled studies of vortioxetine: Comparison to other antidepressants and implications for product labeling.

BACKGROUND: We recently conducted a comprehensive review of the psychiatric inclusion/exclusion criteria used in 170 placebo-controlled antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) published during the past 20 years and found that the criteria of more recent studies were significantly more restrictive than prior studies. Vortioxetine is the most recently approved medication for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). We compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the vortioxetine studies to the criteria used in other AETs, and discuss the broader issue of the generalizability of AETs and the implications this might have for the labeling of antidepressants receiving FDA approval. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of placebo-controlled AETs published from January, 1995 through December, 2014. We identified 170 AETs published during this 20 year period and compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the 12 studies of vortioxetine to those used in the nonvortioxetine studies. A second analysis compared vortioxetine to the 3 antidepressants most recently approved prior to vortioxetine (desvenlafaxine, levomilnacipran extended release, vilazodone). RESULTS: Compared to the nonvortioxetine AETs, the vortioxetine studies significantly more often excluded patients with any comorbid Axis I disorder (p<.001) and more often required the current depressive episode to be longer than the DSM minimum symptom duration requirement of 2 weeks (p<.01). The cutoff on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale required for inclusion in the vortioxetine studies was higher than the cutoff used in the other AETs (p<.01). LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the present analysis is that it was based on published placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants. CONCLUSION: The inclusion/exclusion criteria in the studies of vortioxetine were more restrictive than the criteria used in other AETs. Inconsistent with FDA guidelines on the labeling of medications, the label of vortioxetine does not include a description of the limits to the group of patients with MDD for whom the medication has been shown to be effective.

Have Treatment Studies of Depression Become Even Less Generalizable? A Review of the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Used in Placebo-Controlled Antidepressant Efficacy Trials Published During the Past 20 Years.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) published during the past 5 years with those used in studies published during the previous 15 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of placebo-controlled AETs published from January 1995 through December 2014. We included trials whether or not the medication has received regulatory approval for the treatment of depression. We compared the inclusion and exclusion criteria of studies published during the past 5 years (2010-2014) with those of studies published during the previous 15 years (1995-2009). RESULTS: We identified 170 placebo-controlled AETs published during the past 20 years, 56 of which were published during the past 5 years. The more recent studies were significantly more likely to exclude patients with comorbid Axis I disorders and personality disorders, patients with the episode duration either too long or too short, and patients who had made a suicide attempt in the past. The severity threshold on depression rating scales required for inclusion was higher in the more recent studies. CONCLUSION: The inclusion and exclusion criteria of AETs have become more stringent over the past 5 years, thereby suggesting that AETs may be even less generalizable than they were previously (when concerns about their generalizability had already been raised).