Concordance of Embedded Performance and Symptom Validity Tests and Associations with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder among Post-9/11 Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: The present study explored both embedded symptom (SVT) and performance (PVT) validity test scores within a post-9/11 veteran sample to elucidate the degree to which there is concordance between validity indicators, as well as how frequently one SVT and four PVT indicators were failed in screened mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHOD: A total of 114 post-9/11 veterans were evaluated utilizing the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI) Validity-10, four embedded PVTs, mTBI screening, and a diagnostic interview for PTSD. RESULTS: While we found concordance between embedded PVTs and the NSI Validity-10 at select cutoffs (i.e., ≥13, ≥19), symptom and performance validity indicators were clinically dissociable in that only SVT significantly predicted diagnosed PTSD and screened mTBI. CONCLUSIONS: Dissociation between symptom and performance validity may be clinically useful when interpreting neuropsychological evaluation findings in post-9/11 veterans with a history of mTBI or PTSD.

Symptom severity, self-reported adherence, and electronic pill monitoring in poorly adherent patients with bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis of screening and baseline data from an ongoing trial examined self-report versus automated adherence monitoring and assessed the relationship between bipolar disorder (BD) symptoms and adherence in 104 poorly adherent individuals. METHODS: Adherence was measured with the Tablets Routine Questionnaire (TRQ) and the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Symptoms were measured with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). RESULTS: The mean age of the sample was 46.3 years [standard deviation (SD) = 9.41 years], with 72% (n = 75) women and 71% (n = 74) African American subjects. Adherence improved from screening to baseline, with a mean missed drug proportion measured by TRQ of 61.43% (SD = 26.48%) versus a baseline mean of 46.61% (SD = 30.55%). The mean proportion of missed medication using MEMS at baseline was 66.43% (SD = 30.40%). The correlation between TRQ and MEMS was 0.47. The correlation between a single index drug and all BD medications was 0.95. Symptoms were generally positively correlated with TRQ (worse adherence = more severe symptoms), but in most instances was only at a trend level (p > 0.05), with the exception of the correlations between baseline TRQ and MADRS and BPRS, which were positive (r = 0.20 and r = 0.21, respectively) and significant (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with BD, monitoring increased adherence by 15%. MEMS identified 20% more non-adherence than self-report. Using a standard procedure to identify a single index drug for adherence monitoring may be one way to assess global adherence in patients with BD receiving polypharmacy treatment. Greater BD symptom severity may be a clinical indicator to assess for adherence problems.

Comparing medication attitudes and reasons for medication nonadherence among three disparate groups of individuals with serious mental illness.

This analysis compared medication attitudes and reasons for nonadherence in three distinct groups of patients with serious mental illness (SMI). Cohort 1 had 43 patients with bipolar disorder (BD) treated in a community mental health setting, cohort 2 had 43 patients with BD taking an atypical antipsychotic and treated in an academic medical center, and cohort 3 had 30 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who had been homeless in the last year. Standardized attitudinal scales found generally negative attitudes toward medication and limited illness insight. Although the three cohorts differed with regard to severity of symptoms, age of onset, education, baseline adherence, and race, the groups had similar medication attitudes before and after treatment. Despite group differences in demographic and clinical variables, our analyses found more similarities than differences in medication attitudes among these three discrete groups of poorly adherent, symptomatic patients with SMI. The common attitudinal characteristics have implications for delivery of health care services that can enhance treatment adherence in high-risk SMI patients.