Usefulness of Hamilton rating scale for depression subset scales and full versions for electroconvulsive therapy

Caoimhe Fenton, Declan M McLoughlin, Caoimhe Fenton, Declan M McLoughlin

Abstract

Objectives: We investigated the predictive value of subset scales and full versions of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) for therapeutic outcomes in ECT.

Methods: This secondary analysis of patients with major depression (N = 136; 63% female; age = 56.7 [SD = 14.8]) from the EFFECT-Dep trial (NCT01907217) examined the predictive value of Evans-6, Toronto-7, Gibbons-8 and Maier-Philip 6 HAMD subset scales and three 'full' versions (HAMD-17, HAMD-21 and HAMD-24) on therapeutic outcomes. We also examined early improvement on subset scales and full versions as predictors of response and remission and explored predictive abilities of individual HAMD-24 items.

Results: The subset scales and full scales lacked sufficient predictive ability for response and remission. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified a lack of discriminative capacity of HAMD subset scales and full versions at baseline to predict response and remission. Only the Maier-Philip-6 was significantly associated with percentage reduction in HAMD-24 scores from baseline to end of ECT course. Early improvement on most of the subset scales and full versions was a sensitive and specific predictor of response and remission. Four of the HAMD-24 items were significantly associated with response and one with remission.

Conclusions: Limited utility of the HAMD subset scales and full versions in this context highlight a need for more tailored depression rating scales for ECT.

Conflict of interest statement

Declan M. McLoughlin has received speaker’s honoraria from Mecta and Otsuka and an honorarium from Janssen for participating in an esketamine advisory board meeting. The other author reports no conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

    1. UK ECT Review Group, Efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive therapy in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2003; 361(9360):799–808. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12705-5
    1. Kolshus E, Jelovac A, McLoughlin DM. Bitemporal v. high-dose right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychological Medicine. 2017; 47(3):518–530. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002737
    1. van Diermen L, van den Ameele S, Kamperman AM, et al.. Prediction of electroconvulsive therapy response and remission in major depression: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2018; 212(2):71–80. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2017.28
    1. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960; 23(1):56–62. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56
    1. Helmreich I, Wagner S, Mergl R, et al.. Sensitivity to changes during antidepressant treatment: a comparison of unidimensional subset scales of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012; 262(4):291–304. doi: 10.1007/s00406-011-0263-x
    1. Entsuah R, Shaffer M, Zhang J. A critical examination of the sensitivity of unidimensional subscales derived from the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale to antidepressant drug effects. J Psychiatr Res. 2002; 36(6):437–448. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3956(02)00024-9
    1. Bagby RM, Ryder AG, Schuller DR, et al.. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight? Am J Psychiatry. 2004; 161(12):2163–2177. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2163
    1. Bech P, Allerup P, Gram LF, et al.. The Hamilton depression scale. Evaluation of objectivity using logistic models. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1981; 63(3):290–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1981.tb00676.x
    1. Evans KR, Sills T, DeBrota DJ, et al.. An Item Response analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale using shared data from two pharmaceutical companies. J Psychiatr Res. 2004; 38(3):275–284. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2003.11.003
    1. McIntyre RS, Konarski JZ, Mancini DA, et al.. Measuring the severity of depression and remission in primary care: validation of the HAMD-7 scale. Cmaj. 2005; 173(11):1327–1334. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050786
    1. Gibbons RD, Clark DC, Kupfer DJ. Exactly what does the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale measure? J Psychiatr Res. 1993; 27(3):259–273. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(93)90037-3
    1. Maier W, Philipp M. Improving the assessment of severity of depressive states: a reduction of the Hamilton Depression Scale. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1985; 18(01):114–115.
    1. Faries D, Herrera J, Rayamajhi J, et al.. The responsiveness of the Hamilton depression rating scale. Journal of psychiatric research. 2000; 34(1):3–10. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3956(99)00037-0
    1. Helmreich I, Wagner S, König J, et al.. Hamilton depression rating subscales to predict antidepressant treatment outcome in the early course of treatment. J Affect Disord. 2015; 175:199–208. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.043
    1. Boessen R, Groenwold RH, Knol MJ, et al.. Comparing HAMD(17) and HAMD subscales on their ability to differentiate active treatment from placebo in randomized controlled trials. J Affect Disord. 2013; 145(3):363–369. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.08.026
    1. Lin CH, Park C, McIntyre RS. Early improvement in HAMD-17 and HAMD-7 scores predict response and remission in depressed patients treated with fluoxetine or electroconvulsive therapy. J Affect Disord. 2019; 253:154–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.082
    1. Sakurai H, Uchida H, Abe T, et al.. Trajectories of individual symptoms in remitters versus non-remitters with depression. J Affect Disord. 2013; 151(2):506–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.035
    1. Katz MM, Meyers AL, Prakash A, et al.. Early symptom change prediction of remission in depression treatment. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2009; 42(1):94–107.
    1. Okazaki M, Tominaga K, Higuchi H, et al.. Predictors of response to electroconvulsive therapy obtained using the three-factor structure of the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale for treatment-resistant depressed patients. J ECT. 2010; 26(2):87–90. doi: 10.1097/YCT.0b013e3181b00f32
    1. Carneiro AM, Cavalcanti A, Carvalho LdF, et al.. Predicting response to treatment and discriminating bipolar and depression symptoms using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Jornal Brasileiro de Psiquiatria. 2017; 66:125–130.
    1. Semkovska M, Landau S, Dunne R, et al.. Bitemporal Versus High-Dose Unilateral Twice-Weekly Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression (EFFECT-Dep): A Pragmatic, Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2016; 173(4):408–417. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15030372
    1. Hedlund J, Vieweg B. The Hamilton rating scale for depression: a comprehensive review. Journal of Operational Psychiatry. 1979; 10(2):149–165.
    1. Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology, Revised (DHEW Publication; no. ADM 76–338). US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs, Rockville, MD. 1976.
    1. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, et al.. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders-patient edition (SCID-I/P, Version 2.0). New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute. 1995; 722.
    1. Haynes W. Benjamini–Hochberg Method. In: Dubitzky W, Wolkenhauer O, Cho K-H, et al.., eds. Encyclopedia of Systems Biology. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2013:78–78.
    1. Althouse AD. Adjust for Multiple Comparisons? It’s Not That Simple. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 101(5):1644–1645. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.024
    1. Mchorney CA, Johne W.J, Anastasiae R. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and Clinical Tests of Validity in Measuring Physical and Mental Health Constructs. Medical Care. 1993; 31(3):247–263. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006
    1. Weinstein M, Feinberg H. Clinical Decision Analysis Saunders. Philadelphia; 1980.
    1. Carrozzino D, Patierno C, Fava GA, et al.. The Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression: A Critical Review of Clinimetric Properties of Different Versions. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2020; 89(3):133–150. doi: 10.1159/000506879
    1. Fried EI, van Borkulo CD, Epskamp S, et al.. Measuring depression over time… Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression. Psychol Assess. 2016; 28(11):1354–1367. doi: 10.1037/pas0000275
    1. Fried EI, Nesse RM. Depression sum-scores don’t add up: why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential. BMC medicine. 2015; 13(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4
    1. Gärtner M, Ghisu E, Herrera-Melendez AL, et al.. Using routine MRI data of depressed patients to predict individual responses to electroconvulsive therapy. Experimental Neurology. 2020:113505. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2020.113505
    1. Haq AU, Sitzmann AF, Goldman ML, et al.. Response of depression to electroconvulsive therapy: a meta-analysis of clinical predictors. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015; 76(10):1374–1384. doi: 10.4088/JCP.14r09528
    1. Hieronymus F, Jauhar S, Østergaard SD, et al.. One (effect) size does not fit at all: Interpreting clinical significance and effect sizes in depression treatment trials. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 2020; 34(10):1074–1078. doi: 10.1177/0269881120922950
    1. Ballesteros J, Bobes J, Bulbena A, et al.. Sensitivity to change, discriminative performance, and cutoff criteria to define remission for embedded short scales of the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD). J Affect Disord. 2007; 102(1–3):93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2006.12.015
    1. Wagner S, Engel A, Engelmann J, et al.. Early improvement as a resilience signal predicting later remission to antidepressant treatment in patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res. 2017; 94:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.07.003
    1. Hooper CL, Bakish D. An examination of the sensitivity of the six-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression in a sample of patients suffering from major depressive disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2000; 25(2):178–184.
    1. van Diermen L, Vanmarcke S, Walther S, et al.. Can psychomotor disturbance predict ect outcome in depression? J Psychiatr Res. 2019; 117:122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.07.009

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅