Relative sensitivity of the Montgomery?????sberg depression rating scale, the Hamilton depression rating scale and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale in antidepressant clinical trials: a replication analysis

Introduction: There is growing interest in using patient-reported outcomes as end points in clinical trials, such as the progressive supranuclear palsy quality of life (PSP-QoL) scale. However, this tool has not been widely validated and its correlation with validated motor scales has not been explored. To evaluate the potential utility of using PSP-QoL as an outcome, it is important to examine its relationship with a standard scale used to evaluate neurologic parameters, such as the PSP Rating Scale. Methods: PSP-QoL and PSP Rating Scale scores were gathered from 60 clinically diagnosed PSP patients, including patients with Richardson syndrome PSP (PSP-RS, n = 43) and those with non-RS PSP variants (n = 17). Linear regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, and disease duration was used to evaluate the cross-sectional relationship between the total and subscale scores of the 2 instruments. Results: Among 60 PSP patients, there was a significant correlation between total PSP-QoL and PSP Rating Scale scores. The physical and mentation subscales of each instrument also demonstrated significant correlations. Comparisons among PSP subtypes indicated that worsening PSP-QoL Total and Physical subscale scores correlated with worsening PSP Rating Scale gait subscale scores more strongly for the non-RS PSP variants than for PSP-RS. Discussion: There is a significant association between the total scores and many of the subscale scores of the PSP-QoL and the PSP Rating Scale. Additionally, the relationship between these measures may differ for PSP-RS and non-RS variants. These findings suggest that the PSP-QoL may be useful in clinical trials as a patient-reported outcome measure. Large prospective multicenter studies utilizing the PSP-QoL are necessary to examine its relationship to disease evolution and changes in the PSP Rating Scale.

Download Full-text

Excellent reliability of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) in Indonesia after training

Asia-Pacific Psychiatry ◽

10.1111/appy.12083 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 141-146 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Erita Istriana ◽

Ade Kurnia ◽

Annelies Weijers ◽

Teddy Hidayat ◽

Lucas Pinxten ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rating Scale ◽

Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Download Full-text

Longitudinal Change and Progression Indicators Using the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale in Two Independent Cohorts with Early Parkinson’s Disease

Journal of Parkinson s Disease ◽

10.3233/jpd-212860 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Michael Bartl ◽

Mohammed Dakna ◽

Sebastian Schade ◽

Tamara Wicke ◽

Elisabeth Lang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Parkinson’S Disease ◽

Parkinson's Disease ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Rating Scale ◽

De Novo ◽

Longitudinal Change ◽

Single Center ◽

Square Roots ◽

Disease Rating

Background: The MDS-Unified Parkinson’s disease (PD) Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) is the most used scale in clinical trials. Little is known about the predictive potential of its single items. Objective: To systematically dissect MDS-UPDRS to predict PD progression. Methods: 574 de novo PD patients and 305 healthy controls were investigated at baseline (BL) in the single-center DeNoPa (6-year follow-up) and multi-center PPMI (8-year follow-up) cohorts. We calculated cumulative link mixed models of single MDS-UPDRS items for odds ratios (OR) for class change within the scale. Models were adjusted for age, sex, time, and levodopa equivalent daily dose. Annual change and progression of the square roots of the MDS-UDPRS subscores and Total Score were estimated by linear mixed modeling. Results: Baseline demographics revealed more common tremor dominant subtype in DeNoPa and postural instability and gait disorders-subtype and multiethnicity in PPMI. Subscore progression estimates were higher in PPMI but showed similar slopes and progression in both cohorts. Increased ORs for faster progression were found from BL subscores I and II (activities of daily living; ADL) most marked for subscore III (rigidity of neck/lower extremities, agility of the legs, gait, hands, and global spontaneity of movements). Tremor items showed low ORs/negative values. Conclusion: Higher scores at baseline for ADL, freezing, and rigidity were predictors of faster deterioration in both cohorts. Precision and predictability of the MDS-UPDRS were higher in the single-center setting, indicating the need for rigorous training and/or video documentation to improve its use in multi-center cohorts, for example, clinical trials.

Download Full-text

Review of the efficacy of placebo in comparative clinical trials between typical and atypical antipsychotics

Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1590/s1516-44462009000100013 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 31 (1) ◽

pp. 52-56 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Irismar Reis de Oliveira ◽

Paulo Menezes Nunes ◽

Domingos Macedo Coutinho ◽

Eduardo Pondé de Sena

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Atypical Antipsychotic ◽

Atypical Antipsychotics ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Study Drug ◽

Typical Antipsychotic ◽

The Difference ◽

Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽

Efficacy Parameters ◽

Typical Antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of placebo in comparison with atypical and typical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder and to evaluate the pertinence of using placebo in clinical trials with antipsychotics. METHOD: Trials in which the atypical antipsychotics were compared with typical antipsychotics and placebo were included. A search was conducted using the terms "amisulpride", "aripiprazole", "clozapine", "olanzapine", "quetiapine", "risperidone", "sertindole", "ziprasidone" and "zotepine". Main efficacy parameters were calculated using the proportion of "events" (defined as a deterioration or lack of improvement by at least 20% in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) and the pooled relative risk with random effects, with their respective 95% confidence intervals. We also calculated the necessary sample sizes in studies in which the study drug is compared to a typical antipsychotic or placebo. RESULTS: The pooled efficacy rates observed were 40.8%, 34.9% and 21.3% for the atypical antipsychotics, typical antipsychotics and placebo, respectively. One hundred and sixty six patients would have to be included when a new drug is compared with placebo if calculation is based on a difference of 20% found between the atypical antipsychotic and placebo and 2,054 if the difference sought were that found between the atypical antipsychotic and the typical antipsychotic, i.e. 6%. The estimated therapeutic failures would be 115 of the 166 patients when the study drug is compared with placebo, and 1,274 failures in the 2,054 patients when the study drug is compared to the typical antipsychotic. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo controlled studies may reduce the number of individuals exposed to the harmful effects of ineffective drugs.

Download Full-text