This work may not be copied, distributed, displayed, published, reproduced, transmitted, modified, posted, sold, licensed, or used for commercial purposes. By downloading this file, you are agreeing to the publisher’s Terms & Conditions.

Consensus Statement

Revisiting the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale: Proceedings From the Tardive Dyskinesia Assessment Workshop

John M. Kane, MD; Christoph U. Correll, MD; Andrew A. Nierenberg, MD; Stanley N. Caroff, MD; and Martha Sajatovic, MD; on behalf of the Tardive Dyskinesia Assessment Working Group

Published: May 8, 2018

Article Abstract

Objective: To provide an historic overview of the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) in clinical trials of tardive dyskinesia (TD), with current recommendations for analyzing and interpreting AIMS data.

Participants: Seven psychiatrists and 1 neurologist were selected by the workshop sponsor based on each individual’s clinical expertise and research experience.

Evidence: Using PubMed entries from January 1970 to August 2017, participants selected studies that used the AIMS to evaluate TD treatments. The selections were intended to be representative rather than prescriptive or exhaustive, and no specific recommendations for TD treatment are implied.

Consensus Process: The Working Group met in October 2016 to discuss the AIMS as an assessment tool, outline the challenges of translating clinical trial results into everyday clinical practice, and propose different methods for reporting AIMS data in clinically relevant terms. Recommendations for selecting TD studies for review, analyzing and interpreting AIMS data, and synthesizing discussions among the participants were initiated during the onsite workshop and continued remotely throughout development of this report. Disagreements were resolved via group e-mails and teleconferences. Consensus was based on final approval of this report by all workshop participants.

Conclusions: For both research and clinical practice, the AIMS is a valid measure for assessing TD and the effects of treatment, but alternative analyses of AIMS data (eg, effect size, minimal clinically important difference, response analyses, category shifts) may provide broader evidence of clinical effectiveness. No single analysis of AIMS data can be considered the standard of clinical efficacy; multiple analytic approaches are recommended.

Related Articles

Volume: 79

Quick Links: