Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
Language
- English (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- - (5)
- anxiety disorders (2)
- exposure therapy (2)
- Agoraphobia (1)
- Cognitive-behavioral therapy (1)
- Comorbidity (1)
- Depression (1)
- Exposure (1)
- Panic disorder (1)
- Randomized controlled trial (1)
Institute
Publisher
- S. Karger AG (3)
- Frontiers Media S.A. (1)
- SAGE Publications (1)
- Springer Nature (1)
- Wiley (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.
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.
Objective: Little is known about the specific psychological features that differentiate persistent depressive disorder (PDD) and episodic depression (ED). Thus, the present study aimed to investigate differences in social cognition and interpersonal problems between these two forms of depression and healthy controls. In addition, we aimed to examine childhood maltreatment (CM) as a possible origin of these alterations.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study, adult patients with a current PDD (n = 34) or in a current episode of ED (n = 38), and healthy controls (n = 39) completed questionnaires about depression severity, empathy, interpersonal problems, and CM, as well as tests of affective theory of mind and facial emotion recognition.
Results: Patients with PDD reported higher empathic distress than patients with ED and healthy controls. Both depressive groups recognized angry faces with higher accuracy and reported more interpersonal problems, with no differences between PDD and ED. Empathic distress and interpersonal problems mediated the link between CM and depression in the combined sample.
Limitations: Patient groups were not drug-naïve and antidepressant intake might have influenced social-cognitive functions. Self-report measures of empathy and interpersonal problems are vulnerable to bias. The cross-sectional design does not allow causal conclusions.
Conclusion: Depressed patients may not show deficits in decoding the affective states of others and in feeling with others. However, depressed individuals—in particular patients with PDD—may feel easily overwhelmed by emotionally tense situations, resulting in empathic distress and avoidant/submissive interpersonal behavior. Exposure to CM might be an origin of alterations in social cognition and interpersonal problems.
Extinction learning is suggested to be a central mechanism during exposure-based cognitive behavioralpsychotherapy. A positive association between the patients’pretreatment extinction learning performance andtreatment outcome would corroborate the hypothesis. Indeed, there isfirst correlational evidence between reducedextinction learning and therapy efficacy. However, the results of these association studies may be hampered byextinction-training protocols that do not match treatment procedures. Therefore, we developed an extinction-trainingprotocol highly tailored to the procedure of exposure therapy and tested it in two samples of 46 subjects in total. Byusing instructed fear acquisition training, including a consolidation period overnight, we wanted to ensure that theconditioned fear response was well established prior to extinction training, which is the case in patients with anxietydisorders prior to treatment. Moreover, the extinction learning process was analyzed on multiple response levels,comprising unconditioned stimulus (US) expectancy ratings, autonomic responses, defensive brain stem reflexes, andneural activation using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Using this protocol, we found robust fearconditioning and slow-speed extinction learning. We also observed within-group heterogeneity in extinction learning,albeit a stable fear response at the beginning of the extinction training. Finally, we found discordance betweendifferent response systems, suggesting that multiple processes are involved in extinction learning. The paradigmpresented here might help to ameliorate the association between extinction learning performance assessed in thelaboratory and therapy outcomes and thus facilitate translational science in anxiety disorders
Abstract
Background
The need to optimize exposure treatments for anxiety disorders may be addressed by temporally intensified exposure sessions. Effects on symptom reduction and public health benefits should be examined across different anxiety disorders with comorbid conditions.
Methods
This multicenter randomized controlled trial compared two variants of prediction error‐based exposure therapy (PeEx) in various anxiety disorders (both 12 sessions + 2 booster sessions, 100 min/session): temporally intensified exposure (PeEx‐I) with exposure sessions condensed to 2 weeks (n = 358) and standard nonintensified exposure (PeEx‐S) with weekly exposure sessions (n = 368). Primary outcomes were anxiety symptoms (pre, post, and 6‐months follow‐up). Secondary outcomes were global severity (across sessions), quality of life, disability days, and comorbid depression.
Results
Both treatments resulted in substantial improvements at post (PeEx‐I: dwithin = 1.50, PeEx‐S: dwithin = 1.78) and follow‐up (PeEx‐I: dwithin = 2.34; PeEx‐S: dwithin = 2.03). Both groups showed formally equivalent symptom reduction at post and follow‐up. However, time until response during treatment was 32% shorter in PeEx‐I (median = 68 days) than PeEx‐S (108 days; TRPeEx‐I = 0.68). Interestingly, drop‐out rates were lower during intensified exposure. PeEx‐I was also superior in reducing disability days and improving quality of life at follow‐up without increasing relapse.
Conclusions
Both treatment variants focusing on the transdiagnostic exposure‐based violation of threat beliefs were effective in reducing symptom severity and disability in severe anxiety disorders. Temporally intensified exposure resulted in faster treatment response with substantial public health benefits and lower drop‐out during the exposure phase, without higher relapse. Clinicians can expect better or at least comparable outcomes when delivering exposure in a temporally intensified manner.