Theoretischer Hintergrund: Die diagnostischen Kriterien der Generalisierten Angststörung (GAS) und ihr Status als eigenständige psychische Störung waren lange umstritten. Inzwischen liegen neuere epidemiologische Daten vor, die ein präziseres Bild dieser Störung und ihrer Besonderheiten ermöglichen. Methode: Es wird ein systematischer Überblick zu Prävalenz, Verlauf und Komorbidität, zur Beeinträchtigung und zum Inanspruchnahmeverhalten sowie zur Spezifität des Kernsymptoms (Sorgen) erstellt. Ergebnisse: GAS ist eine häufige Störung, die im jungen Erwachsenenalter einsetzt, jedoch auch – anders als andere Angststörungen – hohe Inzidenzraten im mittleren Lebensalter aufweist. Der Verlauf ist eher chronisch. Trotz hoher Komorbidität lässt sich die Störung valide abgrenzen. Klinisch relevante Sorgen erweisen sich als störungsspezifisch. Die Beeinträchtigungen sind auch bei GAS-Patienten ohne Komorbidität beträchtlich. Schlussfolgerung: Der Forschungsstand spricht für die Bedeutung und Eigenständigkeit der Diagnose sowie für die stärkere Beachtung offener Forschungsfragen. / Background: The diagnostic criteria for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and its status as an independent mental disorder have been controversial. More recent epidemiological data provide a more precise picture of this disorder and its specific features. Methods: A systematic overview is given in regard to prevalence, course and comorbidity, impairment, and help-seeking behavior as well as to specificity of the core symptom (worries). Results: GAD is a frequent disorder with high incidence rates in middle-age groups, which are not seen in other anxiety disorders. Despite the high comorbidity GAD can be validly distinguished. Clinically relevant worries have been proven as specific for the disorder. The impairments are also considerable for patients without comorbid disorders. Conclusions: Research supports the independent status of GAD and the importance of this diagnosis. Unsolved questions are to be analyzed in future research.

Background. The proposed revisions of the ICD and DSM diagnostic systems have led to increased interest in evaluation of diagnostic criteria. This report focuses on the DSM-IV requirement that episodes of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) must persist for at least 6 months. Community epidemiological data are used to study the implications of changing this requirement in the range 1–12 months for estimates of prevalence, onset, course, impairment, co-morbidity, associations with parental GAD, and sociodemographic correlates. Method. Data come from the US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), a US household survey carried out during 2001–2003. Version 3.0 of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI) was used to assess DSM-IV anxiety disorders, mood disorders, substance disorders, and impulse-control disorders. Results. Lifetime, 12-month, and 30-day prevalence estimates of DSM-IV GAD changed from 6·1%, 2·9%, and 1·8% to 4·2–12·7%, 2·2–5·5%, and 1·6–2·6% when the duration requirement was changed from 6 months to 1–12 months. Cases with episodes of 1–5 months did not differ greatly from those with episodes of [gt-or-equal, slanted]6 months in onset, persistence, impairment, co-morbidity, parental GAD, or sociodemographic correlates. Conclusions. A large number of people suffer from a GAD-like syndrome with episodes of <6 months duration. Little basis for excluding these people from a diagnosis is found in the associations examined here.

Concerns have been raised that the DSM-IV requirements of 6-month duration, excessive worry, and three associated symptoms exclude a substantial number of people with clinically significant anxiety from a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). We examined the implications of relaxing these three criteria for the estimated prevalence and predictive validity of GAD using nationally representative data from the US National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Relaxing all three criteria more than doubles the estimated prevalence of GAD. Broadly defined GAD significantly predicts the subsequent first onset of a wide range of temporally secondary disorders. The odds of secondary disorders are somewhat smaller for broadly defined than DSM-IV GAD, though few of these differences are statistically significant. Results suggest that subthreshold manifestations of GAD are significantly related to elevated risk of subsequent psychopathology. Further research is needed to determine whether broadening the current diagnostic criteria results in a more valid characterization of GAD.

Background: It is unclear whether generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) has a specific relationship to pain syndromes, going beyond the established association of pain with anxiety syndromes in general. Methods: Mental disorders were assessed in a community sample (N = 4181; 18–65 years) using the DSM-IV/M-CIDI. Several threshold definitions were used to define GAD and medically unexplained pain. Results: The association between pain and GAD (odds ratio, OR = 5.8 pain symptoms; OR = 16.0 pain disorder) is stronger than the association between pain and other anxiety disorders (OR = 2.4 pain symptoms; OR = 4.0 pain disorder). This association extends to subthreshold level definitions of GAD with some indication for a non-linear dose–response relationship. The GAD-pain link cannot sufficiently be explained by demographic factors, comorbid mental or physical disorders. Conclusions: The association of pain and generalized anxiety is not artifactual. Compared to other anxiety syndromes, it appears to be stronger and more specific suggesting the need to explore clinical and public health implications.

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is associated with painful physical symptoms (PPS). These post hoc analyses of previous trial data assessed PPS and their response to duloxetine treatment in GAD patients. Studies 1 and 2 (n = 840) were 9- to 10-week efficacy trials; study 3 (n = 887) was a relapse prevention trial comprising a 26-week open-label treatment phase and a 26-week double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment continuation phase. Mean baseline visual analog scale scores (VAS, 0–100; n = 1727) ranged from 26 to 37 for overall pain, headache, back pain, shoulder pain, interference with daily activities, and time in pain while awake. In studies 1 and 2, improvement on all VAS scores was greater in duloxetine-treated than in placebo-treated patients (p ≤ 0.01). In study 3, pain symptoms worsened in responders switched to placebo compared with those maintained on duloxetine (p ≤ 0.02). In conclusion, duloxetine was efficacious in the short- and long-term treatment of PPS, which are common in GAD patients.

The objective was to examine duloxetine 60–120mg/day treatment for relapse prevention in adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Adult patients (N=887; mean age=43.3 years; 61.0% female) with DSM-IV-TR-defined GAD diagnosis were treated with duloxetine for 26 weeks. Patients who completed open-label phase and were treatment responders (≥50% reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score to ≤11 and “much”/“very much improved” ratings for the last 2 visits of open-label phase) were randomly assigned to receive duloxetine or placebo for a 26-week double-blind continuation phase. Relapse was defined as ≥2-point increase in illness severity ratings or by discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. During the double-blind phase, placebo-treated patients (N=201) relapsed more frequently (41.8%) than duloxetine-treated patients (13.7%, N=204, P≤0.001) and worsened on each outcome measure (P≤0.001, all comparisons). Duloxetine 60–120 mg/day treatment was efficacious and reduced risk of relapse in patients with GAD.

Der Beitrag untersucht auf der Grundlage neuer primärärztlicher Befunde die Versorgungsqualität bei der hinsichtlich Chronizität und Arbeitsausfall schwerwiegendsten Angsterkrankung, der Generalisierten Angststörung. Neben einer knappen Einführung in das Störungsbild werden die an über 20 000 Patienten in 558 Hausarztpraxen gewonnenen Kernbefunde der GAD-P-Studie (Generalisierte Angst und Depression in der Primärärztlichen Versorgung) zusammengefasst und Ansatzpunkte zur Verbesserung der Versorgungsqualität dieses selten adäquat behandelten Störungsbildes diskutiert. Insbesondere wird auf die zentrale Bedeutung einer sichereren diagnostischen Erkennung als Voraussetzung für therapeutische Verbesserungen hingewiesen. In Ergänzung zur Verbesserung bestehender Weiterbildungsangebote wird auf Arzt- und Patientenebene der breitere Einsatz bestehender Screeningverfahren, die Nutzung krankheitsspezifischer Patientenratgeber, sowie eine breitere Öffentlichkeitsarbeit zur Information über dieses bislang vernachlässigte, häufig chronisch verlaufende Krankheitsbild empfohlen. / Based on new empirical findings in a large-scale primary care study, the quality of care for the most chronic and debilitating anxiety problem, generalised anxiety disorder, is examined. Following a brief introduction of this disorder, the core findings of the GAD-P study (generalised anxiety and depression in primary care) with more than 20,000 patients of 558 family doctor practices are summarised and measures to improve the quality of care of patients with generalised anxiety disorder, a disorder which is rarely adequately treated, are discussed. This paper particularly emphasises the standard use of time-efficient diagnostic screening instruments, because improved recognition and diagnosis is the prerequisite for appropriate treatment. Further the role of the media to increase awareness of this disorder as well as patient education materials to improve compliance and to enhance treatment outcome effects are highlighted.

No description available.

Pathologische Sorgen sind ungenau definiert. Für die Behandlungsplanung bleiben wichtige Fragen offen: Welche Merkmale sind für die Unterscheidung zwischen behandlungsbedürftigen und nicht behandlungsbedürftigen Sorgen relevant? Welche Art von Sorgen muss wie behandelt werden? Und: Welche Art von Sorgen gilt es eher zu akzeptieren? Wir machen praxisnahe Vorschläge dafür, wie Sorgen mittels einer einfachen Heuristik auch vom Patienten selbst als «pathologisch» identifiziert werden können. Im Sinne eines therapeutischen Arbeitsmodells ergeben sich differentielle Bearbeitungsstrategien, je nachdem, ob es sich um wichtige oder weniger wichtige, auf lösbare oder unlösbare Probleme bezogene sowie angemessene oder überzogene Sorgen handelt. Das vorgestellte Arbeitsblatt zu den Sorgen soll vor allem die wahrgenommene Kontrolle des Patienten stärken und die Psychoedukation zur Generalisierten Angststörung erleichtern. / Pathological worries have not yet been clearly defined. As a consequence, practically relevant questions remain open: Which characteristics distinguish worries relevant for treatment from those which are not? What kind of worries has to be treated in which way? And: What kind of worries is rather to be accepted? We propose a simple rationale which helps the therapist and the patient to identify pathological worries. According to this working model, different treatment strategies result depending on whether worries are central or not, whether they relate to a problem which can be solved or not, and whether they seem proportionate or exaggerated. The presented worksheet is meant to strengthen the perceived control of the patient and to help facilitate psychoeducation for generalised anxiety disorder. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.

Background: Worry exposure (WE) is a core element of cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Its efficacy as a stand-alone treatment method (without further cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions) has never been tested.We aimed to examine whether WE alone is as efficacious as the empirically supported stand-alone treatment for GAD, applied relaxation (AR). Methods: In a randomized controlled study, 73 outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for GAD as primary diagnosis were allocated to either WE or AR or a waiting list control group; in a 2nd randomization procedure the waiting list subjects were reallocated to WE or AR. The treatment was manualized (15 sessions with WE or AR), included 6-month and 1-year follow-ups, as well as last observation carried forward and completer analyses, and was controlled for allegiance effects.The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Scale were used as primary outcome measures. Self-report scales of anxiety, worrying and depression including negative metacognition about worrying and thought suppression served as secondary outcome measures. Results: The dropout rate was moderate. The pre-/posttreatment effects were high for the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (standardized mean difference >1) and for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (standardized mean difference >0.87). The proportion of patients reaching high end state functioning was 48% (WE) and 56% (AR). WE and AR did not differ with regard to dropout rate or treatment effects. The treatment effects were stable at 6 month and 1 year follow-up. Conclusion: This is the first study to show that a stand-alone exposure in sensu technique – WE – is efficacious in the treatment of GAD. Both AR and WE seem to represent effective principles of change in GAD. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.