Disagreement between self-reported and clinician-ascertained suicidal ideation and its correlation with depression and anxiety severity in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To study the disagreement between self-reported suicidal ideation (SR-SI) and clinician-ascertained suicidal ideation (CA-SI) and its correlation with depression and anxiety severity in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BPD). METHODS: Routine clinical outpatients were diagnosed with the MINI-STEP-BD version. SR-SI was extracted from the 16 Item Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) item 12. CA-SI was extracted from a modified Suicide Assessment module of the MINI. Depression and anxiety severity were measured with the QIDS-SR-16 and Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale. Chi-square, Fisher exact, and bivariate linear logistic regression were used for analyses. RESULTS: Of 103 patients with MDD, 5.8% endorsed any CA-SI and 22.4% endorsed any SR-SI. Of the 147 patients with BPD, 18.4% endorsed any CA-SI and 35.9% endorsed any SR-SI. The agreement between any SR-SI and any CA-SI was 83.5% for MDD and 83.1% for BPD, with weighted Kappa of 0.30 and 0.43, respectively. QIDS-SR-16 score, female gender, and ≥4 year college education were associated with increased risk for disagreement, 15.44 ± 4.52 versus 18.39 ± 3.49 points (p = 0.0026), 67% versus 46% (p = 0.0783), and 61% versus 29% (p = 0.0096). The disagreement was positively correlated to depression severity in both MDD and BPD with a correlation coefficient R(2) = 0.40 and 0.79, respectively, but was only positively correlated to anxiety severity in BPD with a R(2) = 0.46. CONCLUSION: Self-reported questionnaire was more likely to reveal higher frequency and severity of SI than clinician-ascertained, suggesting that a combination of self-reported and clinical-ascertained suicidal risk assessment with measuring depression and anxiety severity may be necessary for suicide prevention.

Should an assessment of Axis I comorbidity be included in the initial diagnostic assessment of mood disorders? Role of QIDS-16-SR total score in predicting number of Axis I comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Axis I comorbidity in mood disorders was common in epidemiological studies. This study was designed to investigate the prevalence, pattern, and number of Axis I comorbidities and the role of the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology - 16 items-Self-Report (QIDS-16-SR) in predicting the number of comorbidities in major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BPD). METHODS: Baseline data from the first 300 routine clinical outpatients diagnosed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Systematic-Treatment-Enhancement - Program for BPD version 5.0.0 were used. Baseline severity was measured with QIDS-16-SR and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S). RESULTS: Of 113 patients with MDD and 166 with BPD, the prevalence of any current anxiety disorder (AD), substance use disorder (SUD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was 76% versus 74%, 14% versus 29%, and 8% versus 21%, respectively. The most common patterns of current comorbidity were MDD+AD (58.4%) for MDD, and BPD+AD (39.8%) and BPD+AD+SUD (11.4%) for BPD. More than 80% patients with MDD or BPD had ≥ 1 current comorbid disorder. About 20% patients with BPD and 10% with MDD had ≥ 4 other disorders. The number of comorbidities was positively associated with baseline severity and suicidal ideation in both MDD and BPD. A QIDS-16-SR of 10 had a positive predictive value of ≥ 90% in predicting ≥ 1 comorbidity in MDD and BPD. LIMITATIONS: The sample was modest and from a tertiary medical center. CONCLUSION: A thorough diagnostic assessment for Axis I comorbidity should be included in all patients with mood disorders, especially when a QIDS-16-SR of ≥ 10 points.

Acute efficacy of divalproex sodium versus placebo in mood stabilizer-naive bipolar I or II depression: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an exploratory evaluation of the acute efficacy of extended-release divalproex sodium compared to placebo in patients with bipolar I or II depression. METHOD: Outpatients aged 18-70 years with mood stabilizer-naive bipolar I or II disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (DSM-IV) were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of divalproex sodium monotherapy or placebo. The primary outcome measure was mean change from baseline to week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcomes included rates of response and remission, changes in the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar (CGI-BP) Severity of Illness scores, and changes in anxiety symptoms as measured by the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. The study was conducted between 2003 and 2007. RESULTS: Fifty-four subjects with bipolar I (n = 20) or bipolar II (n = 34) disorder were randomly assigned to divalproex or placebo; 67% (36 of 54) met DSM-IV criteria for rapid cycling. Divalproex treatment produced statistically significant improvement in MADRS scores compared with placebo from week 3 onward. The proportions of patients meeting response criteria were 38.5% (10 of 26) in the divalproex group versus 10.7% (3 of 28) for the placebo group (P = .017). The proportions of patients meeting remission criteria were 23.1% (6 of 26) for divalproex versus 10.7% (3 of 28) for placebo (P = .208). Subgroup analysis revealed no separation between divalproex and placebo for those with bipolar II diagnoses. Nausea, increased appetite, diarrhea, dry mouth, and cramps were the most common side effects. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that divalproex sodium is efficacious and reasonably well tolerated in the acute treatment of mood stabilizer-naive patients with bipolar depression, particularly for those with rapid-cycling type I presentations, and that confirmatory large-scale studies are indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00194116.