Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- - (4) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
- S. Karger AG (2)
- SAGE Publications (1)
Background: Controversy surrounds the questions whether co-occurring depression has negative effects on cognitivebehavioral therapy (CBT) outcomes in patients with panic disorder (PD) and agoraphobia (AG) and whether treatment for PD and AG (PD/AG) also reduces depressive symptomatology. Methods: Post-hoc analyses of randomized clinical trial data of 369 outpatients with primary PD/AG (DSM-IV-TR criteria) treated with a 12-session manualized CBT (n = 301) and a waitlist control group (n = 68). Patients with comorbid depression (DSM-IV-TR major depression, dysthymia, or both: 43.2% CBT, 42.7% controls) were compared to patients without depression regarding anxiety and depression outcomes (Clinical Global Impression Scale [CGI], Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A], number of panic attacks, Mobility Inventory [MI], Panic and Agoraphobia Scale, Beck Depression Inventory) at post-treatment and follow-up (categorical). Further, the role of severity of depressive symptoms on anxiety/depression outcome measures was examined (dimensional). Results: Comorbid depression did not have a significant overall effect on anxiety outcomes at post-treatment and follow-up, except for slightly diminished post-treatment effect sizes for clinician-rated CGI (p = 0.03) and HAM-A (p = 0.008) when adjusting for baseline anxiety severity. In the dimensional model, higher baseline depression scores were associated with lower effect sizes at post-treatment (except for MI), but not at follow-up (except for HAM-A). Depressive symptoms improved irrespective of the presence of depression. Conclusions: Exposure-based CBT for primary PD/AG effectively reduces anxiety and depressive symptoms, irrespective of comorbid depression or depressive symptomatology.
Abstract
During fear conditioning, a cue (CS) signals an inevitable distal threat (US) and evokes a conditioned response that can be described as attentive immobility (freezing). The organism remains motionless and monitors the source of danger while startle responses are potentiated, indicating a state of defensive hypervigilance. Although in animals vagally mediated fear bradycardia is also reliably observed under such circumstances, results are mixed in human fear conditioning. Using a single‐cue fear conditioning and extinction protocol, we tested cardiac reactivity and startle potentiation indexing low‐level defensive strategies in a fear‐conditioned (n = 40; paired presentations of CS and US) compared with a non‐conditioned control group (n = 40; unpaired presentations of CS and US). Additionally, we assessed shock expectancy ratings on a trial‐by‐trial basis indexing declarative knowledge of the previous contingencies. Half of each group underwent extinction under sham or active transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS), serving as additional proof of concept. We found stronger cardiac deceleration during CS presentation in the fear learning relative to the control group. This learned fear bradycardia was positively correlated with conditioned startle potentiation but not with declarative knowledge of CS‐US contingencies. TVNS abolished differences in heart rate changes between both groups and removed the significant correlation between late cardiac deceleration and startle potentiation in the fear learning group. Results suggest, fear‐conditioned cues evoke attentive immobility in humans, characterized by cardiac deceleration and startle potentiation. Such defensive response pattern is elicited by cues predicting inevitable distal threat and resembles conditioned fear responses observed in rodents.
Individual responses to behavioral treatment of anxiety disorders vary considerably, which requires a better understanding of underlying processes. In this study, we examined the violation and change of threat beliefs during exposure. From 8,484 standardized exposure records of 605 patients with different anxiety disorders, learning indicators were derived: expectancy violation as mismatch between threat expectancy before exposure and threat occurrence, expectancy change as difference between original and adjusted expectancy after exposure, and prediction-error learning rate as extent to which expectancy violation transferred into change. Throughout sessions, high threat expectancy but low occurrence and adjusted expectancy indicated successful violation and change of threat beliefs by exposure. Expectancy violation, change, and learning rate substantially varied between patients. Not expectancy violation itself, but higher learning rate and expectancy change predicted better treatment outcome. Successful exposure thus requires expectancy violation to induce actual expectancy change, supporting learning from prediction error as transdiagnostic mechanism underlying successful exposure therapy.