Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T19:24:16.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responsiveness of observer rating scales by analysis of number of days until improvement in patients with major depression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

N Lauge ,
K Behnke ,
J Søgaard ,
B Bahr  and
P Bech
N Lauge
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Frederiksborg General Hospital, DK-3400Hillerød, Denmark
K Behnke
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Frederiksborg General Hospital, DK-3400Hillerød, Denmark
J Søgaard
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Frederiksborg General Hospital, DK-3400Hillerød, Denmark
B Bahr
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Frederiksborg General Hospital, DK-3400Hillerød, Denmark
P Bech*
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Frederiksborg General Hospital, DK-3400Hillerød, Denmark
*
*Correspondence and reprints.
Get access

Summary

Several well-known observer scales, including the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Åsberg Scale (MADRS), Major Depression Rating Scale (MDS), Melancholia Scale (MES), and Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) used for measuring severity of depressive states have been compared by their responsiveness in an open trial including patients treated with a combination of citalopram and mianserin. The patients fulfilled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-IV criteria for major depressive episode, and all scored 18 or more on the HAM-D before treatment. Onset of antidepressant action was defined as an improvement of rating scale scores of 25% or more of pre-treatment scores. A response to treatment was defined as a reduction of 50% or more on the pre-treatment scores. The results showed that the number of treatment days until improvement was 11 to 13 with no difference between the scales. The days until response were between 18 and 21 with no difference between the scales. In conclusion, the depression scales were found to be equal in their ability to detect changes in depressive symptoms during treatment. The mean of days to response was 19 for the combination of citalopram and mianserin. This is similar to the response for the combination of fluoxetine and pinolol.

Keywords

responsivenesscitaloprammianserinHamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D)Montgomery-Åsberg Scale (MADRS)Major Depression Rating Scale (MDS)Melancholia Scale (MES)Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS)
Type
Research Article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , May 1998 , pp. 143 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1998

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

Artigas, F, Romero, L, de Montigny, C, Blier, PAcceleration of the effect of selected antidepressant drugs in major depression by 5-HT1A-antagonists Am J Psychiatry 1996; 154: 37–43Google Scholar
Bech, PClinical properties of citalopram in comparison with other antidepressants. A quantitative meta-analysis in citalopramMontgomery, SAThe new antidepressants 1989 Excerpta Medica Washington DC56–68Google Scholar
Bech, PAcute therapy of depression J Clin Psychiatry 1993 54 suppl 8 18–27Google ScholarPubMed
Bech, PThe Bech, Hamilton and Zung Scales for mood disorders. Screening and listening. A twenty year update with reference to DSM-IV and lCD-10 Springer Amsterdam 1996Google Scholar
Bech, P, Stage, KB, Nair, NPV, et al.The Major Depression Rating Scale (MDS) Inter-rater reliability and validity across different settings in randomized moclobemide trials J Affect Disord 1997; 42: 39–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dam, J, Ryde, L, Svejsø, G, Lauge, N, Lauritzen, B, Bech, PMorning fluoxetine plus evening mianserin versus morning fluoxetine plus evening placebo in ten acute treatment of major depression Pharmacopsychiatry 1998; 31: 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derivan, A, Entsuah, AR, Kikta, DVenlafaxine: Measuring onset of antidepressant action Psychopharmacol Bull 1995; 31: 439–447Google ScholarPubMed
Lauritzen, L, Clemmensen, L, Klysner, R, et al.Combined treatment with imipramine and mianserin. A controlled pilot study Pharmacopsychiatry 1992; 25: 182–186CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lydiard, RB, Pottash, ALC, Gold, MSSpeed of onset of action of the newer antidepressants Psychopharmacol Bull 1984; 20: 258–271Google ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, SA, Åsberg, MA new depression scale to be sensitive to change Br J Psychiatry 1997; 134: 382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklson, IA, Reimitz, PE, Semmel, CFactors that influence the outcome of placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials Psychopharm Bull 1997; 33: 41–51Google ScholarPubMed
Perez, V, Gilaberte, I, Faries, D, Alvarez, E., Artigas, FRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pindolol in combination with fluoxetine antidepressant treatment Lancet 1997; 349: 1594–1597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quitkin, FM, Rabstain, JG, Ross, D, Stewart, JWIdentification of the drug response to antidepressants: Use of pattern analysis Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984; 41: 782–786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rush, JA, Giles, DE, Schlesser, MAThe Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): Preliminary findings Psychiatry Res 1986; 18: 65–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, GM, Lee, JH, Cuculie, ZTwo dosages of imipramine in hospitalized endogenous and neurotic depressives Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976; 33: 1093–1102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stassen, HH, Delini-Stula, A., Angst, JTime course of improvement under antidepressant treatment: A survival-analytic approach Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1993; 3: 127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, HH, Angst, J, Delini-Stula, ASeverity at baseline and onset of improvement in depression. Meta-analysis of imipramine and moclobemide versus placebo Eur Psychiatry 1994; 9: 129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, HH, Angst, J, Delini-Stula, AOnset of Action under antidepressant treatment Eur Psychiatry 1997; 12: 163–165CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.