Impact of BPRS interview length on ratings reliability in a schizophrenia trial

AbstractSignal detection in clinical trials relies on ratings reliability. We conducted a reliability analysis of site-independent rater scores derived from audio-digital recordings of site-based rater interviews of the structured Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) in a schizophrenia study. “Dual” ratings assessments were conducted as part of a quality assurance program in a 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group study of PF-02545920 compared to placebo in patients with sub-optimally controlled symptoms of schizophrenia (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01939548). Blinded, site-independent raters scored the recorded site-based BPRS interviews that were administered in relatively stable patients during two visits prior to the randomization visit. We analyzed the impact of BPRS interview length on “dual” scoring variance and discordance between trained and certified site-based raters and the paired scores of the independent raters.Mean total BPRS scores for 392 interviews conducted at the screen and stabilization visits were 50.4±7.2 (SD) for site-based raters and 49.2±7.2 for site-independent raters (t=2.34; p=0.025). “Dual” rated total BPRS scores were highly correlated (r=0.812). Mean BPRS interview length was 21:05±7:47min ranging from 7 to 59min. 89 interviews (23%) were conducted in less than 15min. These shorter interviews had significantly greater “dual” scoring variability (p=0.0016) and absolute discordance (p=0.0037) between site-based and site-independent raters than longer interviews.In-study ratings reliability cannot be guaranteed by pre-study rater certification. Our findings reveal marked variability of BPRS interview length and that shorter interviews are often incomplete yielding greater “dual” scoring discordance that may affect ratings precision

Recommendations for selection and adaptation of rating scales for clinical studies of rapid-acting antidepressants

The novel mechanisms of action (MOA) derived from some recently introduced molecular targets have led to regulatory approvals for rapid acting antidepressants (RAADs) that can generate responses within hours or days, rather than weeks or months. These novel targets include the N-methyl-D-glutamate receptor antagonist ketamine, along with its enantiomers and various derivatives, and the allosteric modulators of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors. There has also been a strong resurgence in interest in psychedelic compounds that impact a range of receptor sites including D1, 5-HT7, KOR, 5-HT5A, Sigma-1, NMDA, and BDNF. The RAADs developed from these novel targets have enabled successful treatment for difficult to treat depressed individuals and has generated a new wave of innovation in research and treatment. Despite the advances in the neurobiology and clinical treatment of mood disorders, we are still using rating instruments that were created decades ago for drugs from a different era (e.g., The Hamilton and Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scales, HDRS, and MADRS) continue to be used. These rating instruments were designed to assess mood symptoms over a 7-day time frame. Consequently, the use of these rating instruments often requires modifications to address items that cannot be assessed in short time frames, such as the sleep and appetite items. This review describes the adaptative approaches that have been made with the existing scales to meet this need and examines additional domains such as daily activities, side effects, suicidal ideation and behavior, and role functioning. Recommendations for future studies are described, including the challenges related to implementation of these adapted measures and approaches to mitigation