Validation of the Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire, a new clinical tool for relative assessment of response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

The success of long-term therapy in schizophrenia is contingent upon real-world effectiveness or improvements in several domains, including efficacy, safety and tolerability. This report describes the Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire (IAQ), a new 10-item instrument designed to assess relative effectiveness (efficacy, safety and tolerability) of antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. To measure content validity, 300 psychiatrists rated the importance of the IAQ items. Efficacy (i.e., positive and negative symptoms) was considered most important, but importance scores relative to the mean ranged only from 0.87 to 1.18, suggesting similar importance of the items. Cronbach's coefficient alpha values showed that the items were internally consistent. Factor analyses indicated that all IAQ items belong to a single domain. Data from the US Broad Effectiveness Trial of Aripiprazole were used for construct validation. Total IAQ score correlated significantly with time to treatment discontinuation (r=-0.50), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score (r=0.76) and medication preference of patients (r=0.71) or caregivers (r=0.70). A one-unit decrease in IAQ score corresponded to an additional 1.35 days in the study and a decrease in CGI-I of 0.21 units. These results provide initial validation of the IAQ as a tool for evaluating antipsychotic response in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Self-reported depressive symptom measures: sensitivity to detecting change in a randomized, controlled trial of chronically depressed, nonpsychotic outpatients.

This study evaluated and compared the performance of three self-report measures: (1) 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR30); (2) 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR16); and (3) Patient Global Impression-Improvement (PGI-I) in assessing clinical outcomes in depressed patients during a 12-week, acute phase, randomized, controlled trial comparing nefazodone, cognitive-behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP), and the combination in the treatment of chronic depression. The IDS-SR30, QIDS-SR16, PGI-I, and the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS24) ratings were collected at baseline and at weeks 1-4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Response was defined a priori as a > or =50% reduction in baseline total score for the IDS-SR30 or for the QIDS-SR16 or as a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 at exit. Overall response rates (LOCF) to nefazodone were 41% (IDS-SR30), 45% (QIDS-SR16), 53% (PCI-I), and 47% (HDRS17). For CBASP, response rates were 41% (IDS-SR30), 45% (QIDS-SR16), 48% (PGI-I), and 46% (HDRS17). For the combination, response rates were 68% (IDS-SR30 and QIDS-SR16), 73% (PGI-I), and 76% (HDRS17). Similarly, remission rates were comparable for nefazodone (IDS-SR30=32%, QIDS-SR16=28%, PGI-I=22%, HDRS17=30%), for CBASP (IDS-SR30=32%, QIDS-SR16=30%, PGI-I=21%, HDRS17=32%), and for the combination (IDS-SR30=52%, QIDS-SR16=50%, PGI-I=25%, HDRS17=49%). Both the IDS-SR30 and QIDS-SR16 closely mirrored and confirmed findings based on the HDRS24. These findings raise the possibility that these two self-reports could provide cost- and time-efficient substitutes for clinician ratings in treatment trials of outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD without cognitive impairment. Global patient ratings such as the PGI-I, as opposed to specific item-based ratings, provide less valid findings.