Treatment-resistant schizophrenia - A RCT on the effectiveness of repeated-dose sodium nitroprusside.

OBJECTIVES: Sodium nitroprusside (SNP) has shown efficacy in schizophrenia in early stages of the disease in a previous study, but in more recent studies it has not shown efficacy in patients with longer disease duration. In present study, we evaluated the efficacy of repeated-dose SNP in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Twenty DSM-IV schizophrenia subjects, aged 18-60 years, with a history of nonresponse to ≥2 trials of antipsychotics of adequate dose and duration (≥6 weeks) were enrolled. Participants received SNP or placebo 4-hour infusions at 0.5 µg/kg/min. A total of 4 infusions and 4 follow-up evaluations, with an interval of 2 weeks, were performed. Severity of symptoms were assessed by using Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-18) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales. RESULTS: SNP and placebo groups did not differ at baseline or in change from baseline for PANSS-total (F = 0.525; p = 0.841), PANSS-positive (F = 0.32; p = 0.958), PANSS-negative (F = 1.05; p = 0.483), BPRS (F = 0.615; p = 0.734), or CGI-S (F = 1.11; p = 0.416) scores. SNP was well tolerated and showed a good safety profile. CONCLUSION: Although preliminary, the present findings suggest that SNP is not efficacious in TRS, reinforcing previous studies that have not demonstrated symptom improvement in chronic schizophrenia subjects. At this time, it is conceivable to speculate that efficacy of SNP might be restricted to early stages of disease.

Clinical validity and intrarater and test-retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 - Clinician Version (SCID-5-CV).

AIM: The Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM is one of the most used diagnostic instruments in clinical research worldwide. The current Clinician Version of the instrument (SCID-5-CV) has not yet been assessed in respect to its psychometric qualities. We aimed to assess the clinical validity and different reliability indicators (interrater test-retest, joint interview, face-to-face vs telephone application) of the SCID-5-CV in a large sample of 180 non-prototypical and psychiatric patients based on interviews conducted by raters with different levels of clinical experience. METHODS: The SCID-5-CV was administered face-to-face and by telephone by 12 psychiatrists/psychologists who took turns as raters and observers. Clinical diagnoses were established according to DSM-5 criteria and the longitudinal, expert, all data (LEAD) procedure. We calculated the percentage of agreement, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and the level of agreement (kappa) for diagnostic categories and specific diagnoses. RESULTS: The percentage of positive agreement between the interview and clinical diagnoses ranged between 73% and 97% and the diagnostic sensitivity/specificity were >0.70. In the joint interview, the levels of positive agreement were high (>75%) and kappa levels were >0.70 for most diagnoses. The values were less expressive, but still adequate, for interrater test-retest interviews. CONCLUSION: The SCID-5-CV presented excellent reliability and high specificity as assessed with different methods. The clinical validity of the instrument was also confirmed, which supports its use in daily clinical practice. We highlight the adequacy of the instrument to be used via telephone and the need for careful use by professionals with little experience in psychiatric clinical practice.