Translating the HAM-D into the MADRS and vice versa with equipercentile linking.

BACKGROUND: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are scales used frequently to rate the symptoms of depression. There are many situations in which it is important to know what a given total score or a percent reduction from baseline score of one scale means in relation to the other scale. METHOD: We used the equipercentile linking method to identify corresponding scores of simultaneous HAM-D and MADRS ratings in 4388 patients from 31 mirtazapine trials in major depressive disorder. Data were collected at baseline and at weeks 1, 2 and 4. RESULTS: HAM-D scores of 10, 20, 30 and 40 roughly corresponded to MADRS scores of 13, 26, 39 and 52-53, respectively. An absolute HAM-D improvement of 10, 20, 25 points corresponded to a MADRS improvement of 12, 26, and 34. A percentage improvement from baseline of the HAM-D was approximately the same as a percentage improvement on the MADRS. CONCLUSION: These results are important for the comparison of trials that used the HAM-D and MADRS. We present conversion tables for future research.

What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical relevance of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. It is unclear how total scores translate into clinical severity, or how commonly used measures for response (reduction from baseline of ≥50% in the total score) translate into clinical relevance. Moreover, MADRS based definitions of remission vary. METHODS: We therefore compared: a/ the MADRS total score with the Clinical Global Impression - Severity Score (CGI-S) b/ the percentage and absolute change in the MADRS total scores with Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I); c/ the absolute and percentage change in the MADRS total scores with CGI-S absolute change. The method used was equipercentile linking of MADRS and CGI ratings from 22 drug trials in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n=3288). RESULTS: Our results confirm the validity of the commonly used measures for response in MDD trials: a CGI-I score of 2 ('much improved') corresponded to a percentage MADRS reduction from baseline of 48-57%, and a CGI-I score of 1 ('very much improved') to a reduction of 80-84%. If a state of almost complete absence of symptoms were required for a definition of remission, a MADRS total score would be <8, because such scores corresponded to a CGI-S score of 2 ('borderline mentally ill'). LIMITATIONS: Although our analysis is based on a large number of patients, the original trials were not specifically designed to examine our research question. CONCLUSIONS: The results might contribute to a better understanding and improved interpretation of clinical trial results in MDD.

What does the HAMD mean?

Little is known about the clinical relevance of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) total scores. It is unclear how total scores translate into clinical severity, or what commonly used measures for response (reduction from baseline of ≥ 50% in the total score) and remission (total HAMD-17 score ≤ 7) mean from a clinical perspective. We therefore compared: (a) the percentage and absolute change in the HAMD-17 total scores with Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I); (b) the absolute and percentage change in the HAMD-17 total scores with Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) absolute change; and (c) the percentage and absolute change in the HAMD-17 total scores with CGI-I in the subgroups of patients with ≤ median and > median HAMD-17 total scores at baseline. The method used was equipercentile linking of HAMD-17 and CGI ratings from 43 drug trials in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n = 7131). Our results confirm the validity of the commonly used measures for remission and response in MDD trials: a CGI-I score of 2 ('much improved') corresponded to a reduction from baseline of > 50% and < 60%, and a CGI-I score of 1 ('very much improved') to a reduction of > 75% and < 85%. The CGI-S score of 1 ('normal., not at all ill') corresponded to the HAMD-17 total score of < 5 and the CGI-S score of 2 ('borderline mentally ill') to the score between 6 and 8. An effect of baseline illness severity was observed.