Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale Research Articles

Cross-cultural evaluation of the French version of the Delusion Assessment Scale (DAS) and Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS).

Major depressive disorder with psychotic features (MDDPsy), compared to nonpsychotic MDD, involves an increased risk of suicide and failure to achieve treatment response. Symptom scales can be useful to assess patients with MDDPsy. The aim of the present study was to validate French versions of the Delusion Assessment Scale (DAS) and Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS). One hundred patients were included. The scales were filled out by psychiatrists. Data from participants who accepted a second interview were used for inter-judge reliability. The scalability and psychometric properties of both scales were assessed. Data from 94 patients were used. Owing to low score variability between patients, the predefined threshold for scalability (≥0.40) was not reached for both scales. Factorial analysis of the DAS identified five factors, different from those of the original version. Five factors were also identified in the PDAS, of which two comprised items from the HDRS and the other three items from the BPRS. Floor and ceiling effects were observed in both scales, due in part to the construction of certain subscales. Unlike the PDAS, the DAS had good internal consistency. Multiple correlations were observed between the DAS dimensions but none between those of the PDAS. Both scales showed good inter-judge reliability. Convergent validity analyses showed correlations with HDRS, BPRS and CGI. Inter-judge reliability was calculated from a relatively small number of volunteers. The good psychometric properties of the French versions of the DAS and PDAS could help in assessing MDDPsy, in particular its psychotic features, and hence improve response to treatment and prognosis.

Performance of the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale as a Predictor of ECT Outcome.

The presence of psychotic symptoms is an important predictor of responsiveness to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This study investigates whether a continuous severity measure, the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), is a more accurate predictor. Depression severity was assessed before and after the ECT course using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in 31 patients with psychotic depression and 34 depressed patients without psychotic symptoms. Logistic regression models for MADRS response and remission were fitted, with either the PDAS total score or the dichotomous predictors "absence/presence of psychotic symptoms" as the independent variables. Age, episode duration, and treatment resistance were added as covariates. Both the asserted presence of psychotic symptoms and a higher PDAS total score reflected MADRS response (areas under the curve, 0.83 and 0.85, respectively), with MADRS remission also being predicted by the presence of psychotic symptoms and higher PDAS scores (areas under the curves, 0.86 and 0.84, respectively). Age was a contributor to these prediction models, with response and remission rates being highest in the older patients. Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale scores decreased significantly during ECT: at end point, 81.5% of the patients showed significant response and 63.9% had achieved remission. The PDAS indeed accurately predicts response to and remission after ECT in (psychotic) depression and most pronouncedly so in older patients but seems to have no clear advantage over simply verifying the presence of psychotic symptoms. This could be the consequence of a ceiling effect, as ECT was extremely effective in patients with psychotic depression.ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier: NCT02562846.

Clinical validation of the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) against independent global severity ratings in older adults.

According to a recent study, ratings on the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) obtained via a dedicated semi-structured interview are valid measures of the severity of psychotic depression. This study aimed to further test the validity, scalability and responsiveness of the PDAS in older adults using independent ratings on the Clinical Global Impression Scale - Severity (CGI-S) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) as references. Ratings were performed at admission and discharge at two old age psychiatric wards in Flanders, Belgium. In total, 62 older adults (mean age: 74.3 years) with psychotic depression were included. The PDAS was rated by trained nurses using the semi-structured PDAS interview. Senior psychiatrists scored the participants on the CGI-S. Psychologists or experienced nurses rated participants on the MADRS. Clinical validity was assessed by correlating the PDAS total scores with CGI-S ratings and MADRS total scores. Mokken analysis was performed to assess the scalability of the PDAS. Responsiveness was assessed by comparing the proportion of participants in remission (PDAS total score <8 at study baseline and endpoint). The Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.76 and 0.79 for the PDAS versus CGI-S and PDAS versus MADRS, respectively. The Mokken analysis yielded a Loevinger coefficient of 0.46, which is indicative of scalability. At admission, no participants met the PDAS remission criterion. At discharge, 54% (95% confidence interval: 47%-60%) of the patients met this criterion. The PDAS appears to be a clinically valid, scalable and responsive measure of the severity of psychotic depression in older adults.

Validation of the semi-structured Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) interview.

Recently, a semi-structured interview dedicated to aid rating on the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) was developed. Here, we aimed to validate PDAS ratings collected via this semi-structured interview. A total of 50 patients with psychotic depression - 34 with unipolar psychotic depression and 16 with bipolar psychotic depression - were recruited for the study. The following aspects of validity were investigated: clinical validity, psychometric validity (scalability), and responsiveness. The PDAS ratings were clinically valid (Spearman's coefficient of correlation between PDAS total scores and Clinical Global Impressions scale - severity of illness ratings=0.66, p<0.001), scalable (Loevinger's coefficient of heterogeneity at endpoint=0.45), and responsive (no participants met the criterion for remission on the PDAS (total score <8) at baseline - at endpoint 74% (95% CI: 60-85) of the participants met this criterion). The semi-structured PDAS interview provides valid ratings of the severity of psychotic depression.

Clinical Validation of the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-6, and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-5: Results from the Clinical Research Center for Depression Study.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the psychotic depression assessment scale (PDAS), which includes the six-item melancholia subscale from the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-6) and the five-item psychosis subscale from the brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS-5). Data from the Clinical Research Center for Depression (CRESCEND) study, which is a 52-week naturalistic trial, were analyzed.MethodsFifty-two patients with psychotic depression from the CRESCEND study met our inclusion criteria. The patients underwent the following psychometric assessments: the PDAS, including HAMD-6 and BPRS-5, the clinical global impression scales, the HAMD, the positive symptom subscale, and the negative symptom subscale. Assessments were performed at the baseline and then at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 52. Spearman correlation analyses were used to assess the clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS.ResultsThe clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS, including HAMD-6 and BPRS-5, were acceptable, with the exception of the clinical responsiveness of the PDAS for positive symptoms and the clinical responsiveness of BPRS-5 for negative symptoms.ConclusionThe clinical relevance of the PDAS has been confirmed and this clinical validation will enhance its clinical utility and availability.

Gender Differences in the Clinical Characteristics of Psychotic Depression: Results from the CRESCEND Study.

ObjectiveTo test whether there are gender differences in the clinical characteristics of patients with psychotic depression (PD).MethodsUsing data from the Clinical Research Center for Depression (CRESCEND) study in South Korea, we tested for potential gender differences in clinical characteristics among 53 patients with PD. The Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) and other psychometric scales were used to evaluate various clinical features of the study subjects. Independent t-tests were performed for normally distributed variables, Mann-Whitney U-tests for non-normally distributed variables, and χ2 tests for discrete variables. In addition, to exclude the effects of confounding variables, we carried out an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the normally distributed variables and binary logistic regression analyses for discrete variables, after adjusting the effects of marital status.ResultsWe identified more prevalent suicidal ideation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=10.316, p=0.036) and hallucinatory behavior (aOR=8.332, p=0.016), as well as more severe anxiety symptoms (degrees of freedom [df]=1, F=6.123, p=0.017), and poorer social and occupational functioning (df=1, F=6.265, p=0.016) in the male patients compared to the female patients.ConclusionOur findings suggest that in South Korean patients with PD, suicidal ideation, hallucinatory behavior, and anxiety is more pronounced among males than females. This should be taken into consideration in clinical practice.

Establishing the cut-off score for remission and severity-ranges on the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS)

BackgroundThe Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) is a rating scale dedicated to the measurement of severity in psychotic depression (PD). The aim of this study was to establish the PDAS cut-off for remission of PD as well as PDAS score-ranges for mild, moderate, and severe PD. The secondary aim was to test how remission, as defined by the PDAS, would perform as outcome measure when applied to the data from a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) in PD. MethodsThe study was based on data from the Study of Pharmacotherapy in Psychotic Depression (STOP-PD). The cut-off for remission on the PDAS and the severity-ranges for mild, moderate, and severe PD were defined using the Clinical Global Impression – Severity scale (CGI-S) as reference by means of pair-wise receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Subsequently, it was tested whether remission on the PDAS could separate the effects of Olanzapine+Sertraline vs. Olanzapine+Placebo through an intention-to-treat, mixed-effects logistic regression of the data from STOP-PD. ResultsAccording to the ROC analyses, the ideal cut-off for remission of PD was a PDAS total score <8, while the severity-ranges for mild, moderate and severe PD were 8–15, 16–23, and >23 respectively. When applying the PDAS total score <8 (remission) as outcome on the STOP-PD data, treatment with Olanzapine+Sertraline performed significantly better than Olanzapine+Placebo (p<0.001). LimitationsThe STOP-PD was not designed specifically to answer the research questions of the present study. ConclusionsAccording to this study, a total score <8 on the PDAS corresponds to remission of PD.

Rating scales measuring the severity of psychotic depression.

Unipolar psychotic depression (PD) is a severe and debilitating syndrome, which requires intensive monitoring. The objective of this study was to provide an overview of the rating scales used to assess illness severity in PD. Selective review of publications reporting results on non-self-rated, symptom-based rating scales utilized to measure symptom severity in PD. The clinical and psychometric validity of the identified rating scales was reviewed. A total of 14 rating scales meeting the predefined criteria were included in the review. These scales grouped into the following categories: (i) rating scales predominantly covering depressive symptoms, (ii) rating scales predominantly covering psychotic symptoms, (iii) rating scales covering delusions, and (iv) rating scales covering PD. For the vast majority of the scales, the clinical and psychometric validity had not been tested empirically. The only exception from this general tendency was the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), which was developed specifically to assess the severity of PD. In PD, the PDAS represents the only empirically derived rating scale for the measurement of overall severity of illness. The PDAS should be considered in future studies of PD and in clinical practice.

Is the BPRS-5 subscale of the psychotic depression assessment scale a reliable screening tool for psychotic depression?: Results from the CRESCEND Study

BackgroundThe detection of psychotic depression (PD) among patients with depressive disorders is important for both treatment and monitoring. Therefore, in continuation of our previous work, this study aimed to test the ability of the five-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-5) of the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) in separating patients with psychotic depression from those with non-psychotic depression (non-PD) and to compare this discriminative validity to that of other item sets. MethodsA receiver operating characteristics curve was used to identify the optimal cut-off score of the BPRS-5 subscale for sensitive and specific distinction between PD and non-PD in a sample of 494 patients with depressive disorders (53 with PD and 441 with non-PD). ResultsUsing an optimal cut-off score of 1, the sensitivity and the specificity of the BPRS-5 subscale in detecting PD were 71.2% and 87.2%, respectively. The BPRS-5 outperformed other item sets of the PDAS and the positive symptom subscale of the BPRS in identifying patients with PD. LimitationsThe inter-rater reliability of the PDAS and the BPRS-5 subscale was not evaluated in this study. ConclusionsThe BPRS-5 subscale can be regarded as a more sensitive screening method for PD compared to other item sets from the PDAS and the BPRS. Hence, from a screening perspective, a positive score on any of the five symptoms of the BPRS-5 subscale (hallucinatory behavior, unusual thought content, suspiciousness, blunted affect, and emotional withdrawal) is indicative of PD, and should lead to more thorough diagnostic assessment.

Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale

BackgroundRecent studies have indicated that the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), consisting of the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and 5 psychosis items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), is a valid measure for the severity of psychotic depression. The aim of this study was to subject the PDAS, and its depression (HAM-D6) and psychosis (BPRS5) subscales to further validation. MethodsPatients diagnosed with psychotic depression at Danish psychiatric hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews. Video recordings of these interviews were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists (global severity rating of psychotic depression, depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms) and by two young physicians (rating on 27 symptom items, including the 11 PDAS items). The clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS and its subscales was investigated by Spearman correlation analysis of the global severity ratings and the PDAS, HAM-D6, and BPRS5 total scores. The unidimensionality of the scales was tested by item response theory analysis (Mokken). ResultsRatings from 39 participants with unipolar psychotic depression and nine participants with bipolar psychotic depression were included in the analysis. The Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the PDAS, HAM-D6 and BPRS5 were clinically valid (correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.001) and responsive (correlation coefficients from 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) measures of psychotic depression. According to the Mokken analysis, all three scales were unidimensional. ConclusionsThe clinical validity, responsiveness and unidimensionality of the PDAS and its subscales were confirmed in an independent sample of patients with psychotic depression.

Is the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale a useful diagnostic tool?: The CRESCEND study

BackgroundThe Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) has been validated as a method of assessing the severity and treatment outcomes of psychotic depression (PD). We aimed to compare the results of the PDAS in PD and non-psychotic depression (non-PD) patients and validate the PDAS as a diagnostic tool for PD. MethodsWe included 53 patients with PD and 441 with non-PD who participated in the Clinical Research Center for Depression study in South Korea. In addition to the PDAS, psychometric tools including the HAMD17, HAMA, BPRS, CGI-S, SOFAS, SSI-Beck, WHOQOL-BREF, AUDIT, and FTND were used to assess, respectively, depression, anxiety, overall symptoms, global severity, social functioning, suicidal ideation, quality of life, alcohol use, and nicotine use. ResultsAfter adjusting for age and total HAMD17 score, PD patients had higher scores for depressive mood, hallucinations, unusual thought content, suspiciousness, blunted affect, and emotional withdrawal on the PDAS and higher total scores on the SSI-Beck than non-PD patients. Binary logistic regression identified hallucinatory behavior and emotional withdrawal as predictors of PD. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that emotional withdrawal could be used to differentiate psychotic from non-psychotic depression. LimitationsThe inter-rater reliability for psychometric assessments was not evaluated. ConclusionsIn addition to assessing the severity and treatment outcomes of PD, PDAS can help in the diagnosis of PD.

Measuring treatment response in psychotic depression: The Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) takes both depressive and psychotic symptoms into account

BackgroundThere is no established psychometric instrument dedicated to the measurement of severity in psychotic depression (PD). The aim of this study was to investigate whether a new composite rating scale, the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), covering both the psychotic and the depressive domains of PD, could detect differences in effect between two psychopharmacological treatment regimens. MethodsWe reanalyzed the data from the Study of Pharmacotherapy of Psychotic Depression (STOP-PD), which compared the effect of Olanzapine+Sertraline (n=129) versus Olanzapine+Placebo (n=130). The response to the two regimens was compared using both a mixed effects model and effect size statistics on the total scores of three rating scales: the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17), its 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6), and the 11-item PDAS consisting of the HAM-D6 plus five items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale covering psychotic symptoms. ResultsAccording to both statistical approaches, the PDAS, the HAM-D17 and the HAM-D6 were all able to detect significant differences in treatment effect between Olanzapine+Sertraline and Olanzapine+Placebo (Olanzapine+Sertraline being superior). Notably, 45% of the trial participants were at least “probable psychotic” at their last assessment in the trial. LimitationsThe STOP-PD was not designed specifically to answer the research questions of the present study. ConclusionsThe Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) is a sensitive measure of treatment response in PD. The fact that 45% of the patients still experienced psychotic symptoms at their last trial assessment emphasizes the need to include items pertaining to psychotic symptoms in rating scales for PD.