A perspective on the current issues in the DSM-5 classification of personality disorders.

David Kupfer chaired the DSM-5 Task Force, and Andrew Skodol the working group, on personality disorders. Various initial propositions were posted on the Internet in 2010 for comment and discussion: new general definition, new criteria, new diagnostic procedures, reduction in the number of categories, and dimensional representation. Following numerous criticisms, the Task Force's final decisions were made public on December 1, 2012. Personality disorders now figure alongside other mental disorders, because of the deletion of Axis II. The methodology concerning personality traits is in a third section to promote new studies. The new proposed hybrid system has not, to date, proven better than the categories of the DSM-IV. These various decisions are commented upon.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg daily in patients hospitalized for severe depression: a double-blind randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether hospitalized patients with severe depression and potential suicidal ideation/behavior have earlier and better response to duloxetine 120 mg daily than 60 mg daily. METHOD: Adults from 34 sites in 4 countries with severe major depressive disorder, defined by DSM-IV criteria, who were demonstrating Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores ≥ 30, 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-6) scores ≥ 12, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) ≥ 4 and hospitalized ≥ 2 weeks underwent double-blind treatment with either duloxetine 60 mg (n = 167) or 120 mg (n = 171) daily for 8 weeks. Patients treated with 60 mg/d who did not respond had their doses titrated up to 120 mg/d. Primary outcome was the difference in baseline to week 4 change in MADRS scores between the groups. Secondary outcomes were baseline to week 8 changes in MADRS and HDRS-6 scores, response and remission, CGI-S scores, CGI-Improvement scores, Patient Global Impressions-Improvement, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores, and Reasons For Living inventory results. Safety was also assessed. The study was conducted between February 9, 2007, and August 26, 2008. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mean baseline to week 4 MADRS score change between the 60-mg (-20.1) and 120-mg (-19.9) groups (P = .88). At week 4, 96/166 (60 mg) and 106/170 (120 mg) patients responded and maintained responses at week 8 by further decreasing mean MADRS scores to 5.8 (60 mg) and 5.6 (120 mg). At week 8, 226/336 (67.3%) patients achieved remission, with no difference demonstrated between groups. Most secondary efficacy measures were significantly reduced from baseline to week 8 within each group and did not differ between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events observed with > 10% frequency in both groups were headache and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine 60-mg and 120-mg doses were equally effective and demonstrated no significant differences in treating severe depressive symptoms in hospitalized patients. The safety and tolerability profile of duloxetine in both dosages did not differ and was similar to those reported in previous duloxetine studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00422162.

Desvenlafaxine for the prevention of relapse in major depressive disorder: results of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) with placebo in reducing relapse rate in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial included a 12-week, open-label (OL) treatment phase (intent-to-treat population, n = 575) followed by a 6-month, double-blind (DB) relapse prevention phase. Patients who responded to the OL treatment (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score or= 16 at any visit, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score >or= 6 at any visit, or discontinuation due to unsatisfactory response). RESULTS: Patients receiving desvenlafaxine (n = 189) experienced significantly longer times to relapse of MDD versus patients receiving placebo (n = 185) during the DB period (log-rank test, P < 0.0001). The percentages of patients relapsing were 42% (78/185) and 24% (45/189) for placebo and desvenlafaxine, respectively (P < 0.001). The most common primary reason cited for discontinuation in the OL period was adverse events (19%), which consisted of nausea, dizziness, and insomnia. A total of 159 patients (42%) discontinued treatment during the DB period, including 101 placebo- (55%) and 58 desvenlafaxine-treated patients (31%). The most frequent adverse event reported as reason for treatment discontinuation in the DB period was depression, reported by 14 placebo- (8%) and 7 desvenlafaxine-treated patients (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Desvenlafaxine effectively prevented relapse of MDD during 6 months of DB treatment in patients who had responded to 12 weeks of OL desvenlafaxine therapy.

Factors associated with suicidal behaviors in a large French sample of inpatients with eating disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to identify factors associated with suicidal behaviors among patients with eating disorders. METHOD: A large database including sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 1,009 consecutive patients hospitalized for an eating disorder in Paris, France, was examined. Data gathered upon admission to hospital were analyzed to identify factors associated with a history of suicide attempt or current suicidal ideation, among the whole sample as well as among each subtype of eating disorder. RESULTS: Among the whole sample, the factor most strongly associated with suicide attempt or suicidal ideation was the diagnostic category, with the highest odds ratio for bulimia nervosa followed by anorexia nervosa of the binging/purging subtype. Among diagnostic subgroups, the strongest factors were drug use, alcohol use, and tobacco use. CONCLUSION: Suicide risk should be monitored carefully among patients with eating disorders, paying particular attention to combinations of risk factors.

[Validation of the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory's French translation]. / Validation de la version française de l'inventaire de détresse péritraumatique.

OBJECTIVE: This article outlines the French translation and validation of the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) in a psychotrauma outpatient sample. METHOD: A total of 127 French-speaking individuals were assessed from 2001 to 2002, at their first psychiatric visit for a traumatic event. An assessment at 3 months was offered by mail to control temporal stability. RESULTS: The PDI French validation has good internal consistency, with a 0.83 Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Test-retest shows a very satisfying temporal stability, with a 0.79 coefficient of intraclass correlation in a confidence interval between 0.61 and 0.89. The concurrent validity analyzed through the correlation with the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R), the Peritraumatic Dissociation Questionnaire (PDEQ), and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) is very good. Further, the principal component analysis shows a bivariate solution that explains 45% of variance. CONCLUSION: The PDI French version has a satisfying psychometric validity. Moreover, the factor pattern in this translation is very close to that in the PDI's original version.