Criminal behaviour and violent crimes in former inpatients with affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported criminal and violent behaviour in people with schizophrenia but few have investigated the association between affective disorders and violent behaviour. METHODS: We reviewed the national crime register for records of criminal offences committed by 1561 patients with affective disorders treated between 1990 and 1995 in the Psychiatric Hospital of the University of Munich. The sample was divided into patients with bipolar I disorder, manic disorder and major depressive disorder. Sociodemographic and other risk factors for non-violent and violent criminal behaviour were analysed. RESULTS: Sixty-five (4.16%) patients had been convicted in the 7 to 12 years after discharge (307 cases). The rate of criminal behaviour and violent crimes was highest in the manic disorder group: 15.7% (14 of 89) were listed in the national crime register and 5.6% (5 of 89) were convicted of physical injury offences. Violence and criminality were comparatively rare in patients with major depressive disorder: only 1.42% (10 of 702) committed violent crimes. Male gender was a substantial risk factor for non-violent and especially violent behaviour: the rate of violent crimes was six times higher than in females. Marital status appeared to influence the prevalence of later delinquency: separated, divorced and widowed patients committed offences more frequently. A history of substance use problems before clinical treatment was reported by 21.2% (329 of 1561) of the sample. A wide range of different crimes were committed, with defalcation, theft and fraud being the most frequent. Twenty-one cases of physical assault and one case of later homicide were recorded. In contrast to other forensic studies, we did not find a significant effect of substance abuse on the risk of later delinquent behaviour. CONCLUSION: The frequency of criminal behaviour and violent crimes in individuals with affective disorder depends on much more than just the diagnosis. This study may stimulate further research to identify psychopathological predictors for future violent and criminal behaviour.

Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the Panic Disorder Severity Scale.

BACKGROUND: The Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) is promising to be a standard global rating scale for panic disorder. In order for a clinical scale to be useful, we need a guideline for interpreting its scores and their changes, and for defining clinical change points such as response and remission. METHODS: We used individual patient data from two large randomized controlled trials of panic disorder (total n=568). Study participants were administered the PDSS and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)--Severity and --Improvement. We applied equipercentile linking technique to draw correspondences between PDSS and CGI-Severity, numeric changes in PDSS and CGI-Improvement, and percent changes in PDSS and CGI-Improvement. RESULTS: The interpretation of the PDSS total score differed according to the presence or absence of agoraphobia. When the patients were not agoraphobic, score ranges 0-1 corresponded with "Normal," 2-5 with "Borderline," 6-9 with "Slightly ill," 10-13 with "Moderately ill," and 14 and above with "Markedly ill." When the patients were agoraphobic, score ranges 3-7 meant "Borderline ill," 8-10 "Slightly ill," 11-15 "Moderately ill," and 16 and above "Markedly ill." The relationship between PDSS change and CGI-Improvement was more linear when measured as percentile change than as numeric changes, and was indistinguishable for those with or without agoraphobia. The decrease by 75-100% was considered "Very much improved," that by 40-74% "Much improved," and that by 10-39% "Minimally improved." CONCLUSION: We propose that "remission" of panic disorder be defined by PDSS scores of five or less and its "response" by 40% or greater reduction.

Extrapolation between measures of symptom severity and change: an examination of the PANSS and CGI.

OBJECTIVE: Research based on pooling data from clinical trials suggests that it is possible to extrapolate from a CGI-S to a PANSS severity score and from the CGI-I to a PANSS percentage change score. This research has not been replicated nor examined in individual trials. This study aims to examine the feasibility of extrapolation from the CGI to the PANSS across and within 4 large clinical trials of antipsychotic medication. METHODS: Equipercentile linking is used to examine extrapolation (a) from CGI-S to PANSS severity ratings and (b) from CGI-I to PANSS percentage change (n=2698). Linking is conducted at baseline and after 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks of treatment from ITT clinical trial participants with schizophrenia. RESULTS: Across weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8, being considered 'not ill' according to the CGI-S corresponded to PANSS scores of 31-2. The relationship between the CGI-S and the PANSS followed an increasing trend, such that 'very mild' corresponded with 41-7, 'mild' corresponded with 55-62, 'moderate' corresponded with 71-7, 'marked' corresponded with 88-94, 'severe' corresponded with 105-110, and 'extremely severe' corresponded with 126-134. The relationship between CGI-I ratings and percentage change followed a linear trend, such that 'very much improved' corresponded to PANSS percentage change scores from 79 to 75, 'much improved' corresponded with 45 to 49, 'minimally improved' corresponded with 21 to 23, 'unchanged' corresponded with 2 to 3, 'minimally worse' corresponded with -15 to -20, 'much worse' corresponded with -44 to -51. Generally, within the trials the cut-off ranges identified overlapped within around 10 points of those found in the pooled analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite trial heterogeneity, the results support the extrapolation from the CGI-I to PANSS percentage change. Extrapolation of the CGI-S to the PANSS is observed, except in the case of severe symptomatology which is rare. Collectively, the results support the extrapolation between the PANSS and CGI.

Linking the PANSS, BPRS, and CGI: clinical implications.

To understand what given scores of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) mean from a clinical point of view is important for the translation of research results into practice. We therefore (a) compared the absolute change of the BPRS/PANSS with the Clinical Global Impressions Ratings (CGI) -improvement score and the change of the CGI severity score, (b) analyzed whether the severity of illness at baseline had an impact on the latter association, and (c) attempted to replicate previous BPRS findings using a completely different data set based upon the PANSS-derived BPRS. The method used was equipercentile linking of BPRS and CGI ratings from 14 drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n=5970). An absolute reduction of the BPRS/PANSS by approximately 10/15 points corresponded to a CGI change of 'minimally improved' and to a change of the CGI severity score by one severity step. However, the latter associations depended on the severity of symptoms at baseline. Less severely ill patients required less BPRS/PANSS total score reduction to achieve the same CGI-improvement score than more severely ill patients. This effect of initial severity was attenuated using percentage rather than absolute BPRS/PANSS reduction scores. The linking analysis between the absolute BPRS/PANSS reduction and the CGI may have an implication for the interpretation of efficacy differences found in clinical trials, and for sample size estimations. Clinicians seem to base CGI ratings on relative change rather than on absolute change of symptoms.

Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the clinical meaning of its total score and cut-off values used to define treatment response are unclear. AIMS: To link the BPRS to Clinical Global Impression (CGI) ratings. METHOD: Equipercentile linking of BPRS and CGI ratings from seven drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n=1979). RESULTS: 'Mildly ill' according to the CGI approximately corresponded to a BPRS total score of 31, 'moderately ill'to a BPRS score of 41 and'markedly ill'to a BPRS score of 53.'Minimally improved'according to the CGI score was associated with percentage BPRS reductions of 24, 27 and 30% at weeks 1, 2 and 4, respectively. The corresponding numbers for a CGI rating of 'much improved' were 44, 53 and 58%. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide a clearer understanding of how to interpret BPRS total and percentage reduction scores in clinical trials with patients acutely ill with schizophrenia who are experiencing positive symptoms.

What does the PANSS mean?

OBJECTIVE: Despite the frequent use of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for rating the symptoms of schizophrenia, the clinical meaning of its total score and of the cut-offs that are used to define treatment response (e.g. at least 20% or 50% reduction of the baseline score) are as yet unclear. We therefore compared the PANSS with simultaneous ratings of Clinical Global Impressions (CGI). METHOD: PANSS and CGI ratings at baseline (n = 4091), and after one, two, four and six weeks of treatment taken from a pooled database of seven pivotal, multi-center antipsychotic drug trials on olanzapine or amisulpride in patients with exacerbations of schizophrenia were compared using equipercentile linking. RESULTS: Being considered "mildly ill" according to the CGI approximately corresponded to a PANSS total score of 58, "moderately ill" to a PANSS of 75, "markedly ill" to a PANSS of 95 and severely ill to a PANSS of 116. To be "minimally improved" according to the CGI score was associated with a mean percentage PANSS reduction of 19%, 23%, 26% and 28% at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 6, respectively. The corresponding figures for a CGI rating "much improved" were 40%, 45%, 51% and 53%. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide a better framework for understanding the clinical meaning of the PANSS total score in drug trials of schizophrenia patients with acute exacerbations. Such studies may ideally use at least a 50% reduction from baseline cut-off to define response rather than lower thresholds. In treatment resistant populations, however, even a small improvement can be important, so that a 25% cut-off might be appropriate.