SIBAT-A Computerized Assessment Tool for Suicide Ideation and Behavior: Development and Psychometric Properties

OBJECTIVE

Most assessments of suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB) are limited by reliance on a single assessor, typically a clinician or patient, with scant detail on patient-related drivers of SIB and inability to detect rapid change in SIB. Furthermore, many techniques do not include a semistructured interview, increasing rater variability. The Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT) addresses these limitations.

DESIGN

More than 30 experts in scale development, statistics, and clinical management of suicidal patients collaborated over a greater than four-year period to develop the SIBAT. Input for content and validity was received from patients, clinicians, and regulatory authorities in the United States (US) and Europe. Psychometric properties of the SIBAT were evaluated in validation studies.

RESULTS

The SIBAT is organized into eight independent patient- or clinician-rated modules with branching logic and scoring algorithms, which necessitates computerization. Patient-reported information is first captured in Modules 1 to 5. Thereafter, an experienced clinician reviews the patient's report, conducts a semistructured interview (Module 6), and assesses the patient's suicide risk (Module 7) and optimal antisuicide management (Module 8). Input from cognitive interviews of diverse adult, adolescent, and clinician participants was incorporated into the final version of the SIBAT. Psychometric testing demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass coefficient range: 0.68-0.82), intra-rater reliability (weighted-kappa range: 0.64-0.76), and concurrent validity with other instruments for assessing SIB.

CONCLUSION

Patient- and clinician-based assessments and the psychometric studies summarized in this report support the validity and reliability of the SIBAT for capturing critical information related to assessment of SIB in adolescents and adults at risk for suicide.

Evaluating functional disability in clinical trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in binge eating disorder using the Sheehan Disability Scale

OBJECTIVES

This study examined Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) performance in binge eating disorder (BED) and explored relationships between SDS and BED outcomes using data from three placebo-controlled lisdexamfetamine (LDX) studies (two short-term, dose-optimized studies and one double-blind, randomized-withdrawal study) in adults with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR)-defined BED.

METHODS

Analyses evaluated the psychometric properties of the SDS.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional total score in the short-term studies, with internal consistency (Cronbach's α) being 0.878. Total score exhibited good construct validity, with moderate and statistically significant correlations observed with Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale modified for binge eating, Binge Eating Scale (BES), and EuroQol Group 5-Dimension 5-Level health status index scores. Known-groups validity analysis for the short-term studies demonstrated a significantly lower total score at end of study in participants considered "not ill" versus "ill" based on Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scores. SDS total score changes in the short-term studies were greater in responders than nonresponders based on binge eating abstinence or BES score. In the randomized-withdrawal study, SDS scores increased relative to baseline to a greater extent in participants randomized to placebo than LDX.

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses support the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the SDS in individuals with BED.

Pilot Mental Health Survey, Nepal: Lessons Learned for Survey Design and Instrumentation

Objective: Learning from pilot studies is crucial for the successful implementation of large-scale surveys. In this manuscript, we present the lessons learned for instrumentation and survey methods from a pilot national mental health survey conducted in Nepal. Design: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 1,647 participants aged 13 years and older in three districts of Nepal. We used the Nepali translated standard adult and adolescent versions of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) 7.0.2 for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) to do face-to-face structured diagnostic interviews. In addition, we included questionnaires on help-seeking behavior and barriers in accessing care. Results: We used a six-step procedure to translate and fit the tools in the context of Nepal. We conducted pretesting to evaluate the Nepali translated tools and adaptations, such as the addition of bridging sentences at the start of different modules. We identified different challenges during the tools administration and the ways to minimize reporting bias during data collection. Conclusion: The pilot survey identified the areas for improvement in survey tools, techniques, and methodology. The lessons learned from the pilot survey and the resulting corrective recommendations helped in more successful implementation of the Nepal national mental health survey.

THE DEPRESSION INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT SCALE: Assessment of Psychometric Properties Using Classical and Modern Measurement Theory in a CAN-BIND Trial

Objective: The goal of the Depression Inventory Development (DID) project is to develop a comprehensive and psychometrically sound rating scale for major depressive disorder (MDD) that reflects current diagnostic criteria and conceptualizations of depression. We report here the evaluation of the current DID item bank using Classical Test Theory (CTT), Item Response Theory (IRT) and Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT). Methods: The present study was part of a larger multisite, open-label study conducted by the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01655706). Trained raters administered the 32 DID items at each of two visits (MDD: baseline, n=211 and Week 8, n=177; healthy participants: baseline, n=112 and Week 8, n=104). The DID's "grid" structure operationalizes intensity and frequency of each item, with clear symptom definitions and a structured interview guide, with the current iteration assessing symptoms related to anhedonia, cognition, fatigue, general malaise, motivation, anxiety, negative thinking, pain, and appetite. Participants were also administered the Montgomery- Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR) that allowed DID items to be evaluated against existing "benchmark" items. CTT was used to assess data quality/reliability (i.e., missing data, skewness, scoring frequency, internal consistency), IRT to assess individual item performance by modelling an item's ability to discriminate levels of depressive severity (as assessed by the MADRS), and RMT to assess how the items perform together as a scale to capture a range of depressive severity (item targeting). These analyses together provided empirical evidence to base decisions on which DID items to remove, modify, or advance. Results: Of the 32 DID items evaluated, eight items were identified by CTT as problematic, displaying low variability in the range of responses, floor effects, and/or skewness; and four items were identified by IRT to show poor discriminative properties that would limit their clinical utility. Five additional items were deemed to be redundant. The remaining 15 DID items all fit the Rasch model, with person and item difficulty estimates indicating satisfactory item targeting, with lower precision in participants with mild levels of depression. These 15 DID items also showed good internal consistency (alpha=0.95 and inter-item correlations ranging from r=0.49 to r=0.84) and all items were sensitive to change following antidepressant treatment (baseline vs. Week 8). RMT revealed problematic item targeting for the MADRS and QIDSSR, including an absence of MADRS items targeting participants with mild/moderate depression and an absence of QIDS-SR items targeting participants with mild or severe depression. Conclusion: The present study applied CTT, IRT, and RMT to assess the measurement properties of the DID items and identify those that should be advanced, modified, or removed. Of the 32 items evaluated, 15 items showed good measurement properties. These items (along with previously evaluated items) will provide the basis for validation of a penultimate DID scale assessing anhedonia, cognitive slowing, concentration, executive function, recent memory, drive, emotional fatigue, guilt, self-esteem, hopelessness, tension, rumination, irritability, reduced appetite, insomnia, sadness, worry, suicidality, and depressed mood. The strategies adopted by the DID process provide a framework for rating scale development and validation.

Effects of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate on Functional Impairment Measured on the Sheehan Disability Scale in Adults With Moderate-to-severe Binge Eating Disorder: Results from Two Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trials

Objective: In two Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (NCT01718483 and NCT01718509 at ClinicalTrials.gov), lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) reduced binge eating days/week in adults with moderate-to-severe binge eating disorder (BED). We describe the effects of LDX (50mg and 70mg) on the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS; exploratory endpoint) from both studies. Design: The SDS was assessed at baseline, Week 6, and Week 12/early termination. Analyses included mixed-effects models for repeated measures for the examination of SDS total and domain score changes and a generalized estimating equation model to assess dichotomized remission status (remission [total score ≤6] versus nonremission [total score >6]). Results: Least squares (95% confidence interval [CI]) mean treatment differences for SDS total score change from baseline at Week 12 were -2.80 (-3.98, -1.61) in Study 1 and -3.70 (-4.81, -2.58) in Study 2 (both p<0.001). Least squares (95% CI) mean treatment differences across SDS domains favored LDX over placebo in both studies for the change from baseline at Week 12 (work/school: -0.8 [-1.2, -0.4] and -1.1 [-1.5, -0.7], both p<0.001; social life/leisure activities: -1.0 [-1.4, -0.5] and -1.4 [-1.8, -1.0], both p<0.001; and family life/home responsibilities: -1.0 [-1.4, -0.5] and -1.3 [-1.7, -0.9], both p<0.001). Odds ratios (95% CI) for SDS remission versus nonremission favored LDX over placebo at Week 12 (Study 1: 2.39 [1.44, 3.96]; p<0.001 and Study 2: 5.12 [2.80, 9.33]; p<0.001). Conclusion: These findings indicate that LDX treatment is associated with improvement on the SDS in adults with moderate-to-severe BED.

The effect of vortioxetine on overall patient functioning in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this meta-analysis of data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies were to assess the effect of vortioxetine on overall functioning (primary) and functional remission (secondary) using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data from nine short-term (6/8 weeks) pivotal studies that included patient functioning assessments were included in this random-effects meta-analysis, which used aggregated study-level data for all therapeutic vortioxetine doses and a mixed-effect model for repeated measures using the full analysis set.

RESULTS

A total of 4,216 patients received ≥1 dose of study treatment (1,522 placebo, 2,694 vortioxetine 5-20 mg/day). At study end, the meta-analysis showed improvement for vortioxetine versus placebo (n = 911) in SDS total score (vortioxetine 5 mg, n = 564, change from baseline versus placebo [Δ] -0.24, p = NS; 10 mg, n = 445, Δ -1.68, p ≤ .001; 15 mg, n = 204, Δ -0.91, p = NS; 20 mg, n = 340, Δ -1.94, p ≤ .01). Functional remission (SDS total score ≤6) was observed with vortioxetine 10 mg (n = 170/573; odds ratio [OR] relative to placebo 1.7, p < .001) and 20 mg (n = 144/447; OR 1.6, p < .05), but not 5 mg (n = 207/757; OR 1.1, p = NS) or 15 mg (n = 92/295; OR 1.3, p = NS).

CONCLUSION

Vortioxetine 5-20 mg for 6/8 weeks improved overall patient functioning in patients with MDD. Relative to placebo, vortioxetine 10 and 20 mg demonstrated significant improvement in SDS total score and functional remission.

Efficacy and Safety of Vilazodone in Patients With Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Flexible-Dose Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vilazodone as an acute treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Vilazodone is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, flexible-dose study conducted from May 2013-March 2014. Adult patients (18-70 years, inclusive) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD were randomized (1:1) to placebo or vilazodone 20-40 mg/d for 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were change from baseline to week 8 in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total score and in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score, respectively, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures approach on a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Efficacy analyses were based on 400 patients (placebo = 200, vilazodone = 200); 76% completed the study (placebo = 81%, vilazodone = 71%). The least squares mean difference (95% CI) in total score change from baseline to week 8 was statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo on the HARS (-2.20 [-3.72 to -0.68]; P = .0048) and on the SDS (-1.89 [-3.52 to -0.26]; P = .0236). Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥ 5% of vilazodone patients and at least twice the rate of placebo were nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, delayed ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant differences in favor of vilazodone 20-40 mg/d versus placebo were seen on all measures of anxiety and functional impairment in patients with GAD. Vilazodone was generally well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were noted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844115.

Brexpiprazole as an adjunctive treatment in young adults with major depressive disorder who are in a school or work environment

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, debilitating disorder with substantial socioeconomic burden. Many patients with MDD experience symptoms that impair functioning and productivity, often negatively affecting work or educational pursuits. This Phase 3b open-label study evaluated adjunctive brexpiprazole in young adults with MDD, who were in work or study.

METHODS

Young patients (18-35 years) with MDD (inadequate responders to 1-3 antidepressant treatments [ADT] for their current episode) received brexpiprazole 1-3mg/day (target dose, 2mg/day) adjunctive to the same stable dose of ADT for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Depressive symptoms improved during treatment with adjunctive brexpiprazole (primary endpoint, least squares [LS] mean change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score, -18.1 [p<0.0001]). Reductions from baseline in Sheehan Disability Scale Score (SDS; LS mean change -11.2 [p<0.0001]) and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ; p<0.0001) indicated improvements in the effects of patients' symptoms on functioning (work/school, social life, and home responsibilities). Changes from baseline in additional measures supported improvements in patient functioning and depression symptoms. The most common adverse events were headache (21.3%), weight increase (17.0%), and somnolence (17.0%); reported rates of akathisia were low (6.4%). Clinically relevant increases in weight (≥7%) occurred in 10.5% of patients.

LIMITATIONS

Open-label design; absence of comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Brexpiprazole may represent an effective therapy for adjunctive treatment strategy of young adults with MDD who are working or studying. The observed improvements in work/school functioning in patients with MDD, whose depression was treated with ADT+brexpiprazole, suggests potential to reduce socioeconomic burden.

The Depression Inventory Development Workgroup: A Collaborative, Empirically Driven Initiative to Develop a New Assessment Tool for Major Depressive Disorder

The Depression Inventory Development project is an initiative of the International Society for CNS Drug Development whose goal is to develop a comprehensive and psychometrically sound measurement tool to be utilized as a primary endpoint in clinical trials for major depressive disorder. Using an iterative process between field testing and psychometric analysis and drawing upon expertise of international researchers in depression, the Depression Inventory Development team has established an empirically driven and collaborative protocol for the creation of items to assess symptoms in major depressive disorder. Depression-relevant symptom clusters were identified based on expert clinical and patient input. In addition, as an aid for symptom identification and item construction, the psychometric properties of existing clinical scales (assessing depression and related indications) were evaluated using blinded datasets from pharmaceutical antidepressant drug trials. A series of field tests in patients with major depressive disorder provided the team with data to inform the iterative process of scale development. We report here an overview of the Depression Inventory Development initiative, including results of the third iteration of items assessing symptoms related to anhedonia, cognition, fatigue, general malaise, motivation, anxiety, negative thinking, pain and appetite. The strategies adopted from the Depression Inventory Development program, as an empirically driven and collaborative process for scale development, have provided the foundation to develop and validate measurement tools in other therapeutic areas as well.

A systematic review of the health-related quality of life and economic burdens of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and economic burdens of anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge eating disorder (BED).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of English-language studies was performed in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, Business Source Premier, and Cochrane Library. Cost data were converted to 2014 Euro.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies were included. Data on HRQoL were reported in 41 studies (18 for AN, 17 for BN, and 18 for BED), on healthcare utilization in 20 studies (14 for AN, 12 for BN, and 8 for BED), and on healthcare costs in 17 studies (9 for AN, 11 for BN, and only 2 for BED). Patients' HRQoL was significantly worse with AN, BN, and BED compared with healthy populations. AN, BN, and BED were associated with a high rate of hospitalization, outpatient care, and emergency department visits. However, patients rarely received specific treatment for their eating disorder. The annual healthcare costs for AN, BN, and BED were €2993 to €55,270, €888 to €18,823, and €1762 to €2902, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

AN, BN, and BED have a serious impact on patient's HRQoL and are also associated with increased healthcare utilization and healthcare costs. The burden of BED should be examined separately from that of BN. The limited evidence suggests that further research is warranted to better understand the differences in long-term HRQoL and economic burdens of AN, BN, and BED.

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the Sheehan Irritability Scale in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Irritability is a significant component in the clinical manifestation of major depressive disorder (MDD). The Sheehan Irritability Scale (SIS) was developed to assess irritability-related symptoms in patients with psychiatric disorders. Data from a phase 2 clinical trial (June 2008-July 2009) was utilized to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SIS. The trial population included patients diagnosed with MDD, according to DSM-IV and confirmed via the MINI diagnostic scale, who had inadequate response to citalopram.

METHOD

The secondary analyses included 586 patients from the United States and India. Data from the SIS, depression severity measures (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS-17], Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS], Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report [QIDS-SR]), and other measures (Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS], Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale [CGI-S]) were used in the psychometric evaluation. All statistical tests used a significance level of .05 unless otherwise noted.

RESULTS

Internal consistency (0.92-0.99) and test-retest reliability (0.83 to 0.98) were excellent. Concurrent validity was demonstrated through strong correlations between the SIS total score and HDRS-17, QIDS-SR, SDS, CGI-S, and MADRS scores. SIS total scores were significantly different by clinical severity level (P < .001). Minimally important difference estimates suggest that a 7- to 8-point change in the SIS total score may be clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIS has excellent reliability, acceptable validity, and good responsiveness, making the SIS appropriate for use in clinical research and practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00692445.

Importance of Restoring Function in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

Patients with depression experience symptoms that hinder their ability to function at home, at work, and in social settings. Even when mood symptoms improve, patients' function may not return to normal. Clinicians must make restoration of function a treatment goal along with symptom remission. Rating scales that assess function can help clinicians monitor areas such as work performance, role fulfillment, social activities, and more. The process of treating functional impairments will take time and may require specific interventions, but patients will feel "recovered" only when these areas are restored.

Assessment of functional outcomes by Sheehan Disability Scale in patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

We compared functional impairment outcomes assessed with Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) after treatment with duloxetine versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHODS

Data were pooled from four randomized studies comparing treatment with duloxetine and SSRIs (three double blind and one open label). Analysis of covariance, with last-observation-carried-forward approach for missing data, explored treatment differences between duloxetine and SSRIs on SDS changes during 8 to 12 weeks of acute treatment for the intent-to-treat population. Logistic regression analysis examined the predictive capacity of baseline patient characteristics for remission in functional impairment (SDS total score ≤ 6 and SDS item scores ≤ 2) at endpoint.

RESULTS

Included were 2193 patients (duloxetine n = 1029; SSRIs n = 835; placebo n = 329). Treatment with duloxetine and SSRIs resulted in significantly (p < 0.01) greater improvements in the SDS total score versus treatment with placebo. Higher SDS (p < 0.0001) or 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale baseline scores (p < 0.01) predicted lower probability of functional improvement after treatment with duloxetine or SSRIs. Female gender (p ≤ 0.05) predicted higher probability of functional improvement after treatment with duloxetine or SSRIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with SSRIs and duloxetine improved functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder. Higher SDS or 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale baseline scores predicted less probability of SDS improvement; female gender predicted better improvement in functional impairment at endpoint.

The Psychological and Medical Factors Associated With Untreated Binge Eating Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Although binge eating disorder (BED) is the most prevalent eating disorder, the impact of untreated BED is underappreciated. This review describes the relationship of BED to physical and mental health, quality of life, and functionality.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed searches were conducted on March 21, 2014; searches were limited to English-language research articles, meta-analyses, and reviews published between January 1, 2003 and March 21, 2014. Search terms included (binge eating OR binge-eating OR binge eating disorder) AND (cardiovascular OR metabolic OR metabolic syndrome OR gastrointestinal OR health OR rehabilitation OR recovery OR sleep OR pregnancy OR quality of life OR functional impairment OR activities of daily living OR QoL OR SF-12 OR ED-5D OR SF-36 OR psychosocial OR depressive OR anxiety OR self-esteem OR suicidality OR suicide OR productivity OR family).

STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

Of 326 identified publications, 43 were relevant to the topic and reported on the association of BED with psychiatric and medical comorbidities, quality of life, and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Individuals diagnosed with BED have increased rates of mental health comorbidities (eg, depression and anxiety) and more pronounced medical impairments (eg, cardiovascular disorders) compared with individuals without BED. BED is also associated with functional impairment and reduced quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Binge eating disorder is associated with impairments in physical and mental health, which can decrease quality of life and functionality and lead to increased health care utilization and decreased productivity. However, some caution is warranted in interpreting these findings because it remains unclear whether BED is an antecedent condition, a complication associated with a comorbid psychiatric condition, or an unrelated feature that occurs concurrently with these comorbidities and impairments. Much of the research on BED is based on observational or epidemiologic studies. Controlled studies are needed to clearly define the long-term impairments associated with BED.

How the Timing of a Patient's Self-ratings of Suicidality and the Relationship to the Recipient Affect Patient Responses: A Case Study

OBJECTIVE

This case study explores to what extent, if any, a subject's reporting varies depending upon whom the subject believes will view the data and the relationship the subject has with the reviewer. It also explores the variance in reporting if several days pass between the timeframe in question and the time of data collection.

METHOD

The subject answered three suicidality-related scales (the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale, the Suicidality Modifiers, and the Alphs Dichotomous Impulsivity and Hopelessness Two Questions) for 24 distinct timeframes. The scales were rated three different ways for each timeframe. The first was for only the patient. Immediately afterward, the scales were answered for the subject's therapist. A few days later, the scales were again answered by the patient, but only for the patient. The three different interviews for the same timeframe were compared to investigate any deviations.

RESULTS

This case study found clinically relevant deviations between the three ratings completed for the same timeframe.

CONCLUSION

This case study illustrates that a patient's reporting of his or her symptoms of suicidality using a patient-rated scale can vary depending upon the context, distance from timeframe in question, and the patient's relationship with the reviewer of the data.

Comparative Validation of the S-STS, the ISST-Plus, and the C-SSRS for Assessing the Suicidal Thinking and Behavior FDA 2012 Suicidality Categories

OBJECTIVE

This exploratory study examines the concurrent validity for mapping symptoms of suicidal ideation, self-harm, and suicidal behavior as recorded on the InterSePT Scale for Suicidal Thinking-Plus, the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale (clinician- and patient-rated and reconciled patient/clinician versions), and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale to the 11 United States Food and Drug Administration-Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (September 2012) categories.

METHOD

Forty subjects with varying degrees of suicidal ideation and behavior severity (from not present to extremely severe) were recruited from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room settings. Each patient was interviewed using all three scales (InterSePT Scale for Suicidal Thinking-Plus, the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale) on the same day. The scales were administered in a random sequence by three independent raters who were blind to the ratings on the other scales.

RESULTS

The Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale and the InterSePT Scale for Suicidal Thinking-Plus show acceptable agreement with the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale in detecting the presence or absence of the 2012 Food and Drug Administration-Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment categories 1, 5, 6, 10, and 11 (passive ideation; active ideation with method, intent, and plan; completed suicide; preparatory actions; and self-injurious behavior) but not of categories 2, 3, and 4 (3 other active suicidal ideation combination categories) or to 8 and 9 (aborted and interrupted attempt). Despite the significant disagreement between the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale on the one side and the InterSePT Scale for Suicidal Thinking-Plus and the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale on the other in the ability to accurately map to the 2012 Food and Drug Administration-Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment categories on some items, there was close agreement between the InterSePT Scale for Suicidal Thinking-Plus and the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale on these categories.

CONCLUSION

The results of this exploratory study invite discussion and debate about the validity of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale and its ability to accurately assess key active suicidal ideation categories, since it disagrees so much with the other two standardized scales that agree so closely with each other.

Is There Value in Asking the Question "Do you think you would be better off dead?" in Assessing Suicidality? A Case Study

OBJECTIVE

The author of the widely used suicidality scale, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, has repeatedly made the claim that asking the question, "Do you think you would be better off dead?" in suicidality assessment delivers false positive results. This case study investigates the value of this question as an immediate antecedent to impulsive suicidality and as a correlate of functional impairment.

METHOD

One subject with daily suicidality and frequent impulsive suicidality rated five passive suicidal ideation phenomena and impulsive suicidality daily on a 0 to 4 Likert scale and rated weekly functional impairment scores for 13 weeks on a 0 to 10 Discan metric.

RESULTS

Each of the five passive suicidal ideation phenomena studied frequently occurred at a different severity level, and the five phenomena did not move in synchrony. Most passive suicidal ideation phenomena were very low on dates of impulsive suicidality. Thoughts of being better off dead were a frequent antecedent to impulsive suicidality and were related to an increase in functional impairment.

CONCLUSION

The relationship to both functional impairment and impulsive suicidality suggest that it is potentially dangerous to ignore thoughts of being better off dead in suicidality assessment.

Status Update on the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale (S-STS) 2014

There is a need for a choice of scales to evaluate the full range of suicidal phenomena. Such scales must be capable of use as both safety and efficacy outcome measures in research and in clinical settings. Central to the success in finding and developing effective anti-suicidal medications is having a sensitive suicidality scale that can detect an efficacy signal in conventional sample sizes used in clinical trials. The Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale was developed for these purposes. This article provides a 2014 status update on the scale's progress, its use, and its properties. The authors review why and how the scale was developed; the scale structure, versions, and properties; the trials in which it was used; the time frames accommodated; its validation and reliability studies; its utility in screening and assessment; its utility in assessing treatment-emergent suicidal adverse events; its use as an efficacy outcome measure; its availability in self-rated and clinician-rated forms; the availability and linguistic validation of pediatric versions; linguistic validation in other languages; how it compares with global ratings of suicidality; and its possible utility and applications.

Is a count of suicidal ideation and behavior events useful in assessing global severity of suicidality? A case study

OBJECTIVE

Regulatory agencies and suicidality scales have focused on the value of a count of suicidal ideation and behavior events, even though the clinical usefulness and predictive value of the count of events in the global assessment of suicidality is unclear. This case study explores the value of this event count and offers a more sensitive alternative to tracking the count of events.

METHODS

One subject documented her suicidality daily for 366 days. This documentation included the global severity of suicidality, the count of suicidal events, and the time spent experiencing those events. The relationship between both the count of events and the time spent were each compared to the global severity rating.

RESULTS

We found the relationship between the time spent experiencing suicidality and the global severity of suicidality was much stronger than the relationship between the count of suicidal events and global severity.

CONCLUSION

This case study suggests that tracking the time a patient spends experiencing suicidality may be more clinically useful and may have more value in assessing global severity of suicidality than tracking the count of events of suicidal ideation and behavior.

Linguistic Validation of the Pediatric Versions of the Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale (S-STS)

OBJECTIVE

The United States Food and Drug Administration meta-analysis of registration trials of antidepressants found that emergent suicidality under the age of 25 years increases with decreasing age. This led to boxed warnings for antidepressants and the recommendation for careful assessment and monitoring of suicidality in children and adolescents. To address this need, we describe the development of a pediatric suicidality assessment and tracking scale and a novel, empirically based approach to its age-appropriate linguistic validation.

METHOD

Starting with the adult version of the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale, we collaborated with reading specialists who use the sight word lists of Dolch and Fry and the grade level vocabulary lists of Beck, Farr, and Strickland to adapt the adult version to each age group.

RESULTS

Our approach resulted in the development and documentation of a process for linguistically validating three age-appropriate pediatric versions of the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale from the adult version of the scale: one for 6- to 8-year-olds, a second for 9- to 12-year-olds, and a third for 13- to 17-year-olds.

CONCLUSION

Further reliability and cognitive debriefing studies are needed in diverse demographic, ethnic, and cultural groups to make the pediatric versions of the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale more reliable, more generalizable, and more useful.

The complexity of assessing overall severity of suicidality: a case study

OBJECTIVES

This paper investigates the relationship between total scale scores and some other measures used to assess global severity of suicidality in order to determine if "global assessment" can be accomplished with one metric or if is it necessary to judge severity of suicidality in a multidimensional fashion.

METHODS

For over a year, one subject with daily suicidality self-rated a global severity of suicidality score, the time spent in suicidality over 31,183 events of suicidality, the Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale, Hopelessness Spectrum measure, and the Suicide Plan Tracking Scale.

RESULTS

Relying on only one or two metrics to assess global severity of suicidality appears to have significant limitations. As with all single case reports, the findings may not be generalizable to other cases of suicidality.

CONCLUSION

At the middle to high end of the suicidality spectrum, it is necessary to rely on multiple metrics, not just a global severity of suicidality rating, to properly assess the overall severity of suicidality.

Current Assessment and Classification of Suicidal Phenomena using the FDA 2012 Draft Guidance Document on Suicide Assessment: A Critical Review

OBJECTIVE

Standard international classification criteria require that classification categories be comprehensive to avoid type II error. Categories should be mutually exclusive and definitions should be clear and unambiguous (to avoid type I and type II errors). In addition, the classification system should be robust enough to last over time and provide comparability between data collections. This article was designed to evaluate the extent to which the classification system contained in the United States Food and Drug Administration 2012 Draft Guidance for the prospective assessment and classification of suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical trials meets these criteria.

METHOD

A critical review is used to assess the extent to which the proposed categories contained in the Food and Drug Administration 2012 Draft Guidance are comprehensive, unambiguous, and robust. Assumptions that underlie the classification system are also explored.

RESULTS

The Food and Drug Administration classification system contained in the 2012 Draft Guidance does not capture the full range of suicidal ideation and behavior (type II error). Definitions, moreover, are frequently ambiguous (susceptible to multiple interpretations), and the potential for misclassification (type I and type II errors) is compounded by frequent mismatches in category titles and definitions. These issues have the potential to compromise data comparability within clinical trial sites, across sites, and over time.

CONCLUSION

These problems need to be remedied because of the potential for flawed data output and consequent threats to public health, to research on the safety of medications, and to the search for effective medication treatments for suicidality.

Do the Five Combinations of Suicidal Ideation in the FDA 2012 Draft Guidance Document and the C-SSRS Adequately Cover All Suicidal Ideation Combinations in Practice? A Case Study

OBJECTIVE

The United States Food and Drug Administration's newest classification system for suicidality assessment anchors suicidal ideation to various combinations of passive suicidal ideation, active suicidal ideation, method, intent, and plan. This is based upon the suicidal ideation categories in the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. Although there are 32 possible combinations of these suicidal ideation phenomena, the Food and Drug Administration's 2012 system and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale accommodate six combinations. We use a case study to explore the impact of possible type II errors on suicidality classification posed by not including remaining 26 possible categories.

METHODS

A suicidal subject kept detailed daily records of her experience of suicidality over two separate intervals of eight-months' and nine-months' duration. These records permitted classification of individual events into each of the possible 32 suicidal ideation combinations.

RESULTS

Although only a small percentage of all events of suicidality from either collection period fell outside of the Food and Drug Administration's classification system and the Columbia -Suicide Severity Rating Scale categories, those that were not so categorized constituted a large percentage of the time this subject experienced suicidality. When these two timeframes were aggregated, more than half of the subject's time spent experiencing suicidality fell into the suicidal ideation combinations not captured by the Food and Drug Administration's classification system and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale categories.

CONCLUSION

This case study suggests that type II errors in the Food and Drug Administration's classification system and in the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale categories for suicidal ideation may represent important omissions.

The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS): Has the "Gold Standard" Become a Liability?

OBJECTIVE

The Columbia- Suicide Severity Rating Scale has become the gold standard for the assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical trials. Criticism of the instrument has been mounting. We examine whether the instrument meets widely accepted psychometric standards and maps to the United States Food and Drug Administration's most recent 2012 algorithm for assessment of suicidal phenomena. Our goal is to determine if the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale should be retained as the preferred instrument for assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior.

METHOD

Standard psychometric criteria dictate that categorizations to avoid type I and type II errors should be comprehensive and address the full spectrum (i.e., all dimensions) of a phenomenon. The criteria should also be well defined and consistent, and the wording throughout should be unambiguous. We examine the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale in terms of these criteria.

RESULTS

The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale does not address the full spectrum of suicidal ideation or behavior. As a result, it has the potential to miss many combinations of suicidal ideation and behavior that present to clinicians in practice (type II error). Potential misclassifications (type I and II errors) are compounded by flawed navigation instructions; mismatches in category titles, definitions, and probes; and wording that is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Further, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale in its current form does not map to the 2012 Food and Drug Administration's draft classification algorithm for suicidal ideation and behavior.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale is conceptually and psychometrically flawed and does not map to the Food and Drug Administration's new standards. A new gold standard for assessment of suicidality may be warranted.