PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mark Zimmerman

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Zimmerman.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Dual reuptake inhibitors incur lower rates of tachyphylaxis than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The notion that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be associated with higher relapse rates than other antidepressants during maintenance treatment (tachyphylaxis) has been discussed for years, but to date there is little or no empirical evidence confirming this phenomenon. In this study, we systematically assessed prior anti-depressant treatment history in a cohort of depressed patients who presented for outpatient psychiatric treatment. Rates of tachyphylaxis were compared in venlafaxine and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), which act as dual reuptake inhibitors, versus SSRIs. METHOD: 237 patients who presented for treatment at the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry's outpatient practice and were diagnosed with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were interviewed with the semistructured Treatment Response to Antidepressant Questionnaire. This cohort reported having undergone 326 prior SSRI trials, 47 prior venlafaxine trials, and 35 prior trials with a TCA. Rates of tachyphylaxis as a function of antidepressant class were compared. RESULTS: Rates of tachyphylaxis were significantly lower (chi(2) = 6.77, df = 1, p = .01) with the dual reuptake inhibitors venlafaxine and TCAs (3 [3.7%] of 82) compared to rates of tachyphylaxis with SSRIs (46 [14.1%] of 326). CONCLUSION: These results provide preliminary evidence that dual reuptake inhibitors may incur lower rates of tachyphylaxis than SSRIs. By virtue of the retrospective and non-random design of the study, these results warrant confirmation.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2005

Differences between minimally depressed patients who do and do not consider themselves to be in remission.

OBJECTIVE: We recently derived a cutoff on a self-report scale corresponding to the most commonly used definition of remission in depression treatment studies (i.e., Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] score < or = 7). However, recent research has suggested that use of this cutoff on the HAM-D to define remission is overinclusive. The goal of the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project was to examine how many depressed patients in ongoing treatment who are considered to be in remission by a self-report equivalent of the HAM-D definition of remission nonetheless do not consider themselves to be in remission. METHOD: Five hundred thirty-five psychiatric outpatients treated for a DSM-IV major depressive episode were asked whether they considered themselves to be in remission and completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS), a measure of the severity of the DSM-IV symptoms of depression. The study was conducted from August 2003 until July 2004. RESULTS: Nearly one quarter of the patients who met the remission threshold on the CUDOS (55/249) did not consider themselves to be in remission. Among the CUDOS remitters, the total score on the CUDOS was significantly lower (p < .001) in patients who considered themselves to be in remission than in patients who did not indicate that they were in remission. Examination of specific symptoms revealed greater appetite disturbance and hypersomnia in the patients who did not think they were in remission. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that heterogeneity of clinical status exists even among patients who are minimally depressed and considered to be in remission according to contemporary definitions on symptom severity scales.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Prevalence and features of intermittent explosive disorder in a clinical setting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the lifetime and current prevalence, along with other characteristics such as age at onset, patterns of comorbidity, and interest in treatment, of DSM-IV intermittent explosive disorder (IED) in an outpatient psychiatric sample. METHOD: 1300 individuals presenting for outpatient psychiatric treatment at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, R.I., underwent structured diagnostic assessment for Axis I and II disorders. The diagnosis of IED was made according to DSM-IV criteria. RESULTS: 6.3% (SE, +/- 0.7%) of patients met criteria for lifetime DSM-IV IED, and 3.1% +/- 0.5% of patients met criteria for current DSM-IV IED. While DSM-IV IED was the current principal diagnosis in only 0.6% +/- 0.2% of patients, most patients with current DSM-IV IED (80%) were interested in treatment for their intermittent aggressive behavior. Only lifetime alcohol/drug disorder was more frequent in DSM-IV IED compared with non-IED patients. Age at onset for DSM-IV IED peaked in the teen years, was earlier for men than women, and occurred earlier than all comorbid disorders, with the exception of phobic anxiety disorders, suggesting that IED cannot be attributed to most comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV IED in psychiatric samples is far more common than previously thought. DSM-IV IED develops early in life, especially in male patients, and its development may be independent of most other disorders.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

The Diagnostic Inventory for Depression: a self-report scale to diagnose DSM-IV major depressive disorder.

In this report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we describe the development and validation of the Diagnostic Inventory for Depression (DID), a new self-report scale designed to assess the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) symptom inclusion criteria for a major depressive episode, assess psychosocial impairment due to depression, and evaluate subjective quality of life. A large sample of 626 psychiatric outpatients completed the DID and were interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). The measure's test-retest reliability, discriminant and convergent validity, and sensitivity to clinical change were investigated. The DID subscales achieved high levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The DID was more highly correlated with another self-report measure of depression than with measures of anxiety, substance use problems, eating disorders, and somatization, thereby supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale. The DID also was highly correlated with interviewer ratings of the severity of depression and psychosocial functioning, and DID symptom severity scores were significantly different in depressed patients with mild, moderate, and severe levels of depression. The DID was a valid measure of symptom change. Finally, the DID was significantly associated with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

An illustration of how a self-report diagnostic screening scale could improve the internal validity of antidepressant efficacy trials.

BACKGROUND: During the past 20 years semi-structured diagnostic interviews have been the standard for diagnostic evaluations in research relying on reliable and valid psychiatric assessment and diagnosis; however, only a minority of antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) employ these interviews. This might be important insofar as several studies have found that clinicians conducting unstructured clinical interviews underrecognize diagnostic comorbidity. Because of the financial incentives to recruit patients into AETs quickly, there is little incentive to vigorously determine the presence of comorbid conditions that should result in exclusion from the trial. In the present report we demonstrate how a self-report diagnostic screening scale could be used to identify systematic differences in diagnostic practice across settings, and how such a scale could be used to compare samples of patients who pass screening evaluations and are accepted into an AET. METHODS: Depressed patients completed the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), and were evaluated with either an unstructured clinical interview or with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). RESULTS: The two samples were clinically comparable based on their scores on the self-administered PDSQ. Consistent with the greater thoroughness of the SCID, compared to unstructured diagnostic evaluations, more patients administered the SCID were diagnosed with comorbid conditions. After excluding patients with disorders that might be the basis for exclusion from an AET, the two samples then differed in their scores on the PDSQ. That is, more patients in the sample evaluated by an unstructured interview had 'occult' pathology than patients evaluated with the SCID. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate how systematic differences in diagnostic practice might be detected across sites when conducting AETs. LIMITATIONS: The study was conducted with patients in a single outpatient clinical practice rather than participants of a multi-site trial.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Screening for psychiatric disorders in outpatients with DSM-IV substance use disorders.

Psychiatric disorders are frequent in patients with substance use disorders, and have been associated with increased morbidity and poorer treatment outcome. Because of the clinical importance of comorbid mental disorders, concerns have been raised about the detection of psychiatric disorders in patients with substance use disorders. The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) is a brief, psychometrically strong, self-report scale designed to screen for the most common DSM-IV Axis I disorders encountered in outpatient mental health settings. Previously we described the diagnostic performance of the PDSQ in a large sample of psychiatric outpatients. For the present report, we examined the performance of the PDSQ in psychiatric outpatients with drug and alcohol abuse and dependence, and determined whether its performance in patients with substance use disorders is as good as it is in patients without substance use disorders. For the patients with a substance use disorder, 92% of the comorbid mental disorders were detected by the PDSQ subscales (i.e., mean sensitivity across subscales equals 92%) and 97% of the patients who screened negative did not have a disorder (i.e., mean negative predictive value equals 97%). For patients without a substance use disorder, the mean sensitivity and negative predictive values were 88% and 95%, respectively. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were plotted for each PDSQ subscale for both patient groups, and all areas under the curve were significant and similar in the two groups.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

A review of studies of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale in controls: implications for the definition of remission in treatment studies of depression.

The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is one of the most commonly used symptom severity scales to evaluate the efficacy of antidepressant treatment Various cut-offs have been employed in antidepressant efficacy trials to define remission, although little empirical work has been carried out to determine the validity of various thresholds. One approach towards deriving a valid cut-off score for defining remission is to determine whether a patient's level of symptoms falls within the normal range of values after treatment We therefore conducted a literature review of studies of the MADRS in healthy controls to determine the normal range of values. We identified 10 studies of 14 samples that included data on the MADRS for 569 controls. Across all studies, the mean (+/- SD) weighted MADRS score, adjusting for sample size, was 4.0 (5.8) (95% confidence interval 3.5-4.5). These results are consistent with the findings of our study of the validity of different cut-offs to define remission on the MADRS-based on a narrow definition of remission, which required a complete absence of clinically significant symptoms of depression, the optimal MADRS cut-off was < or = 4 whereas based on a broader definition, the optimal cut-off was < or = 9. The findings can be used for normative comparisons in which post-treatment group mean scores are compared to mean scores from normative samples. A limitation of the review is that none of the studies was based on a randomly selected sample from the general population. In addition, the rigor of the screening used to exclude individuals with psychopathology in most studies is unknown; thus, some of the controls may have had diagnosable depression, thereby elevating the mean scores in the presumptively healthy control group.

Antidepressive Agents↗
PubMed2004

Exclusion criteria used in antidepressant efficacy trials: consistency across studies and representativeness of samples included.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select subjects for participation in antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) vary from study to study. It is unknown how much impact different sets of exclusion criteria have on the representativeness of subjects treated in AETs. In the present study, we applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in 39 recently published AETs to patients evaluated in routine clinical practice to evaluate the range and extent of the representativeness of samples treated in AETs. Nearly 600 patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar depression underwent a thorough diagnostic evaluation. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in AETs were applied to determine how many patients from our sample would have qualified for each AET had they applied. Approximately one sixth of the 596 depressed patients would have been excluded from an efficacy trial because they had a bipolar or psychotic subtype of depression. In the remaining 503 outpatients with nonpsychotic, unipolar MDD, the rates of exclusion ranged from 0% to 95.0% (mean=65.8%). Thus, the findings suggest that there is much variability in the generalizability of AETs, although, in general, subjects treated in AETs represent only a minority of patients treated for MDD in a community-based psychiatry outpatient practice.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Assessing past treatment history: test-retest reliability of the Treatment Response to Antidepressant Questionnaire.

A reliable and valid instrument has yet to be developed that elicits antidepressant treatment history via patient interview. The goal of the present study was to establish the test-retest reliability of the Treatment Response to Antidepressant Questionnaire (TRAQ). The TRAQ is a semistructured interview that was designed to collect systematically information regarding previous antidepressant treatment, adequacy of trials, and nature of response. Fifty subjects who sought outpatient treatment as part of the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project participated in the study. Patients were interviewed initially by a psychologist, who administered the TRAQ. An average of 5 to 6 days later, a psychiatrist who was blind to the results of the initial evaluation readministered the TRAQ to each of these patients. Reliability of recall of antidepressant trials, trial adequacy, and nature of response were evaluated using the kappa statistic. The mean duration of the TRAQ interviews was 3.30 minutes (SD=2.03 minutes). The reliability of recall of antidepressant trials ranged from 0.81 to 0.95, with an overall kappa of 0.91. The kappa for trial adequacy, depending on the definition used, ranged from 0.72 to 0.84. The kappa for determining positive versus negative response was 0.72. Thus, the test-retest reliability of the TRAQ was found to be in the good to excellent range for each of the principal outcome measures. The TRAQ can be administered by non-MDs as a reliable measure for collecting standardized information regarding antidepressant treatment history via patient interview.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

A review of studies of the Hamilton depression rating scale in healthy controls: implications for the definition of remission in treatment studies of depression.

The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is the most commonly used symptom severity scale to evaluate the efficacy of antidepressant treatment. On the basis of an expert consensus panel, an HRSD score of < or = 7 was recommended as a cutoff to define remission. Since that recommendation, little empirical work has been conducted to confirm the validity of this threshold. One approach toward determining a cutoff score for defining remission is to establish the range of values for healthy controls. We therefore conducted a literature review of studies of the HRSD in healthy controls to determine the normal range of values. Studies of the HRSD in healthy control groups were identified in two ways. First, a MEDLINE search for the years 1966 to 2002 was conducted using the key words Hamilton, depression, and controls, and articles were reviewed. Second, the 69 studies included in two review articles written by the authors were examined. We identified 27 studies that included data on the HRSD for 1014 healthy controls. Across all studies, the weighted mean (SD) HRSD score, adjusting for sample size, was 3.2 (3.2; 95% CI, 3.0 to 3.4). HRSD scores were similar in geriatric and nongeriatric samples, and in men and women. Because HRSD scores in healthy controls are more likely to follow a skewed than a normal distribution, based on a mean of 3.2 and a SD of 3.2, at least 84% of healthy controls scored 7 or less on the HRSD, and 97.5% scored 10 or less. Thus, these results can be taken as support for the recommended cutoff of 7 on the HRSD to define remission. The results can also be used for normative comparisons in which posttreatment group mean scores are compared with mean scores from normative samples.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Implications of using different cut-offs on symptom severity scales to define remission from depression.

A fundamental question in the medical management of disease is how well treatment works. Although there are many ways of defining improvement, one endpoint of definite interest is the resolution or remission of the disorder. In short-term antidepressant treatment trials, remission is usually defined according to post-treatment scores on symptom severity measures, such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) or the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). However, there is uncertainty as to what cut-offs should be used on these measures to define remission. During the past 2 years, as part of the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, our laboratory has examined the question of how to define remission on the HRSD and MADRS. In the present report from the MIDAS project, we examined the impact of the cut-off score used to define remission on the percentage of depressed outpatients in ongoing treatment who are considered to be in remission. In addition, we examined the association between remission status and psychosocial impairment for different cut-off scores. Three hundred and three depressed psychiatric outpatients were rated on the MADRS, 17-item HRSD, and an index of DSM-IV remission status. Approximately one-third of patients completed a measure of psychosocial impairment. For both the HRSD and the MADRS, we examined four cut-off scores for remission. For each cut-off, we determined the percentage of patients who met the definition of remission, the percentage of patients who continued to meet DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD), and the percentage of patients without any self-reported impairment from depression. For both scales, the range of cut-off scores was associated with more than a two-fold difference in prevalence of remission. Based on higher thresholds to define remission, a small percentage of patients met criteria for MDD, whereas no patients scoring below the low thresholds had MDD. The threshold to define remission was associated with psychosocial impairment: higher cut-off scores were associated with lower rates of no impairment. The cut-offs used to define remission from depression considerably influence the percentage of patients considered to be in remission. Lower cut-off scores than those most commonly used to define remission appear to be more valid.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Using a self-report depression scale to identify remission in depressed outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: Some have suggested that standardized rating scales be used in clinical practice to monitor the course of treatment; however, the time demands of clinical practice make it difficult to use such measures. This study derived a cutoff on a self-report depression questionnaire corresponding to the most widely used definition of remission (a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale). METHOD: Two hundred sixty-seven depressed outpatients were rated on the Hamilton depression scale and completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS). The authors used receiver operating curve analysis to examine the ability of the CUDOS to identify remission on the Hamilton depression scale. RESULTS: A high level of agreement was found between the self-report and Hamilton depression scale assessments of remission. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report questionnaires represent a practical option for thoroughly and objectively evaluating the course of treatment and determining remission in depressed patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Which factors influence psychiatrists' selection of antidepressants?

OBJECTIVE: There is little empirical evidence to guide clinicians in choosing among the diverse array of antidepressants available. In the absence of replicated empirical research guiding the selection of antidepressants, it is of interest to examine what factors psychiatrists consider when prescribing antidepressants. METHOD: For 1,137 depressed patients who received a new antidepressant prescription, the treating psychiatrist completed a 43-item questionnaire listing factors that might have influenced the choice of antidepressant medication. The questionnaire was filled out immediately after an antidepressant was prescribed to treat a depressive disorder. RESULTS: The most common factors influencing antidepressant selection were the avoidance of specific side effects, the presence of comorbid psychiatric disorders, and the presence of specific clinical symptoms. Prior treatment history, including prior positive or failed response to a drug, was the next most frequently endorsed factor influencing medication choice. Some factors that have been commonly discussed in the literature, such as concern about discontinuation syndrome and drug-drug interactions, rarely influenced antidepressant selection. CONCLUSIONS: Because relatively little research has examined clinical features associated with differential response to the newer generation of antidepressants, a study of psychiatrists' prescribing practices highlights priorities for future controlled research. Our results suggest that two priority areas are the treatment of depression with coexisting anxiety symptoms/anxiety disorders and the influence of particular symptoms on response to different medications.

Antidepressive Agents↗
PubMed2004

Defining remission on the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale.

OBJECTIVE: In antidepressant efficacy trials, it is common to define treatment remission as a score below a cutoff on symptom severity measures. No consensus has emerged regarding an appropriate cutoff for defining remission on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The goal of the present study was to establish an empirically based cutoff on the MADRS for defining remission. METHOD: 303 psychiatric outpatients being treated for a DSM-IV major depressive episode were rated on the Standardized Clinical Outcome Rating for Depression, an index of DSM-IV remission status; the MADRS; and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. We examined the sensitivity, specificity, and overall classification rate of the MADRS for identifying a broad and narrow interpretation of the DSM-IV definition of remission, as well as the association between the breadth of the definition of remission and psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: On the basis of a narrow definition of remission, which requires a complete absence of clinically significant symptoms of depression, the optimal MADRS cutoff was < or = 4. On the basis of a broader definition, the optimal cutoff was < or = 9. Compared with patients scoring 5 through 9 on the MADRS, those who met the narrow definition of remission were rated higher, indicating better functioning, on the GAF and reported significantly less psychosocial impairment (p <.05). CONCLUSION: Our results support the use of a low cutoff on the MADRS to define remission. Because the choice of cutoff will impact the percentage of patients who are considered to be in remission and thus impact conclusions about treatment effectiveness, more empirical study should be directed toward this issue.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2004

On the threshold of disorder: a study of the impact of the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion on diagnosing depressive and anxiety disorders in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Two recent reanalyses of epidemiologic studies found that adding a clinical significance criterion reduced disorder prevalence. Patients presenting for clinical care are usually distressed or impaired by their symptoms; thus, the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion might have little impact on diagnosis in clinical practice. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examine the impact of the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion on diagnostic frequencies of depressive and anxiety disorders in psychiatric outpatients. METHOD: 1500 psychiatric outpatients were evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. We determined the percentage of patients who met symptom criteria but did not meet the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion for major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social phobia, specific phobia, panic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. RESULTS: No patient who met the symptom criteria for current major depressive disorder or PTSD failed to meet the clinical significance criterion. Less than 2% of patients meeting the symptom criteria for current GAD did not meet the clinical significance criterion. There was variability among the remaining anxiety disorders in the percentage of symptomatic patients who met the clinical significance criterion. CONCLUSION: In psychiatric patients, the clinical significance criterion had little impact on diagnosing major depressive disorder, GAD, and PTSD, disorders that are defined, in part, by disruptions of daily regulatory domains such as sleep, appetite, energy, and concentration. In contrast, the clinical significance criterion had a greater impact in determining whether phobic fears, obsessive thoughts, and panic attacks were sufficiently distressing or impairing to qualify for disorder status.

Adult↗