Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-ndqjc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-23T01:48:24.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Outcome in depression (II): beyond the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2020

Koen Demyttenaere*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Psychiatric Center KU Leuven and Research Group Psychiatry, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Glenn Kiekens
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Psychiatric Center KU Leuven and Research Group Psychiatry, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Ronny Bruffaerts
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Psychiatric Center KU Leuven and Research Group Psychiatry, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Philippe Mortier
Affiliation:
IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
Philip Gorwood
Affiliation:
GHU Paris (CMME, Sainte-Anne Hospital), Paris, France IPNP (INSERM U1266), Université de Paris, Paris, France
Lorcan Martin
Affiliation:
St. Loman’s Hospital, Mullingar, Ireland
Massimo Di Giannantonio
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Imaging, and Clinical Sciences, “G. d’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy
*
*Koen Demyttenaere, Email: koen.demyttenaere@uzleuven.be

Abstract

Background

The Leuven Affect and Pleasure Scale (LAPS) was developed as an outcome measure in major depressive disorder (MDD) tha treflects patient treatment expectations. The present report investigates whether the LAPS negative affect, the LAPS positive affect, and the LAPS hedonic tone have added value on top of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in explaining generic as well as patient-centered outcomes.

Methods

A total of 109 outpatients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, criteria for MDD were assessed over 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment. At baseline and after 2, 4, and 8 weeks, the LAPS, HAMD, Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS), Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), and Sheehan Disability Scale were administered. The Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) were also administered at endpoint.

Results

Changes in LAPS negative affect, LAPS positive affect, and LAPS hedonic tone explain 14% of the additional variance in CGI-I, 21% in PGI-I, 37% in cognitive functioning, 32% in overall functioning, 31% in “my life is meaningful,” and 45% in “I feel happy.” Compared to standard scales (PANAS and SHAPS), the LAPS negative affect, LAPS positive affect, and LAPS hedonic tone differentiate better between different levels of CGI-I or PGI-I.

Conclusions

The LAPS has added value (on top of the HAMD) in explaining changes in both generic outcomes (CGI-I/PGI-I) and patient-centered dimensions. The LAPS negative and positive affects and the LAPS hedonic tone differentiate CGI-I and PGI-I scores better than corresponding scales supposed to cover the same domains.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

McGoey, L. Profitable failure: antidepressant drugs and the triumph of flawed experiments. History Hum Sci. 2010;23:5878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, P, Cullen, JW. The new emphasis in cancer control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1985;74:543551.Google ScholarPubMed
Flay, BR. Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Prev Med. 1986;15:451474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demyttenaere, K, Verhaeghen, A, Danthev, N, et al. “Caseness” for depression and anxiety in a depressed outpatient population: symptomatic outcome as a function of baseline diagnostic categories. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;11(6):307315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, M, Posternak, MA, Chelminski, I. Symptom severity and exclusion from antidepressant efficacy trials. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002;22(6):610614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SR, W, Rush, AJ, Nierenberg, AA, et al. Can phase III trial results of antidepressant medications be generalized to clinical practice? A STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(5):599607.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Psychiatry. 1960;23:5662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, SA, Åsberg, M. A new depression rating scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, M, McGlinchey, JB, Posternak, MA, Friedman, M, Attiullah, N, Boerescu, D. How should remission from depression be defined? The depressed patient’s perspective. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):148150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demyttenaere, K, Donneau, AF, Albert, A, Ansseau, M, Constant, E, van Heeringen, K. What is important in being cured from depression ? Discordance between physicians and patients (1). J Affect Disord. 2015;174:390396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology–Revised (DHEW Publ. No. ADM 76-338). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, NIMH Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs; 1976.Google Scholar
Dunlop, BW, Gray, J, Rapaport, MH. Transdiagnostic clinical global impression scoring for routine clinical settings. Behav Sci. 2017;7:40. doi:10.3390:bs7030040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demyttenaere, K, Desaiah, D, Petit, C, Croenlein, J, Brecht, S. Patient-assessed versus physician assessed disease severity and outcome in patients with nonspecific pain associated with major depressive disorder. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;11(1):815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohebbia, M, Dodd, S, Dean, OM, Berk, M. Patient centric measures for a patient centric era: agreement and convergent between ratings on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale and the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-S) scale in bipolar and major depressive disorder. Eur Psychiatry. 2018;53:1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demyttenaere, K, Mortier, P, Kiekens, G, Bruffaerts, R. Is there enough “interest in and pleasure in” the concept of depression? The development of the Leuven Affect and Pleasure Scale (LAPS). CNS Spectr. 2019; 24 (2): 265274. doi:10.1017/S1092852917000578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D, Clark, LA, Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):10631070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snaith, RP, Hamilton, M, Morley, S, Humayan, A, Hargreaves, O, Trigwell, P. A scale for the assessment of hedonic tone: the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;167:99103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheehan, DV, Harnett-Sheehan, K, Raj, BA. The measurement of disability. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996;11(suppl 3):8995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demyttenaere, K, Donneau, AF, Albert, A, Ansseau, M, Constant, E, van Heeringen, K. What is important in being cured from depression: does discordance between physicians and patients matter? (2). J Affect Disord. 2015;174:372377.10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar