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.

Background and Objectives: To describe patterns of healthcare utilization among patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in general practitioner (GP) settings in Germany. Methods: Using a large computerized database with information from GP practices across Germany, we identified all patients, aged > 18 years, with diagnoses of, or prescriptions for, GAD (ICD-10 diagnosis code F41.1) between October 1, 2003 and September 30, 2004 ("GAD patients"). We also constituted an age- and sex-matched comparison group, consisting of randomly selected patients without any GP encounters or prescriptions for anxiety or depression (a common comorbidity in GAD) during the same period. GAD patients were then compared to those in the matched comparison group over the one-year study period. Results: The study sample consisted of 3340 GAD patients and an equal number of matched comparators. Mean age was 53.2 years; 66.3% were women. Over the 12-month study period, GAD patients were more likely than matched comparators to have encounters for various comorbidities, including sleep disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 6.75 [95% CI = 5.31, 8.57]), substance abuse disorders (3.91 [2.89, 5.28]), and digestive system disorders (2.62 [2.36, 2.91]) (all p < 0.01). GAD patients averaged 5.6 more GP encounters (10.5 [SD = 8.8] vs 4.9 [5.7] for comparison group) and 1.4 more specialist referrals (2.3 [2.9] vs 0.9 [1.7]) (both p < 0.01). Only 58.3% of GAD patients received some type of psychotropic medication (i.e., benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and/or sedatives/hypnotics). Conclusions: Patients with GAD in GP practices in Germany have more clinically recognized comorbidities and higher levels of healthcare utilization than patients without anxiety or depression.

Comparing the efficacy of different treatments in psychiatry is difficult for many reasons, even when they are investigated in `head-to-head' studies. A consensus meeting was, therefore, held to produce best practice guidelines for such studies. This article presents the conclusions of this consensus and illustrates it using published data in the field of antidepressant treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

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.

Background Lack of coordination between screening studies for common mental disorders in primary care and community epidemiological samples impedes progress in clinical epidemiology. Short screening scales based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), the diagnostic interview used in community epidemiological surveys throughout the world, were developed to address this problem. Method Expert reviews and cognitive interviews generated CIDI screening scale (CIDI-SC) item pools for 30-day DSM-IV-TR major depressive episode (MDE), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder (PD) and bipolar disorder (BPD). These items were administered to 3058 unselected patients in 29 US primary care offices. Blinded SCID clinical reinterviews were administered to 206 of these patients, oversampling screened positives. Results Stepwise regression selected optimal screening items to predict clinical diagnoses. Excellent concordance [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)] was found between continuous CIDI-SC and DSM-IV/SCID diagnoses of 30-day MDE (0.93), GAD (0.88), PD (0.90) and BPD (0.97), with only 9–38 questions needed to administer all scales. CIDI-SC versus SCID prevalence differences are insignificant at the optimal CIDI-SC diagnostic thresholds (χ2 1 = 0.0–2.9, p = 0.09–0.94). Individual-level diagnostic concordance at these thresholds is substantial (AUC 0.81–0.86, sensitivity 68.0–80.2%, specificity 90.1–98.8%). Likelihood ratio positive (LR+) exceeds 10 and LR− is 0.1 or less at informative thresholds for all diagnoses. Conclusions CIDI-SC operating characteristics are equivalent (MDE, GAD) or superior (PD, BPD) to those of the best alternative screening scales. CIDI-SC results can be compared directly to general population CIDI survey results or used to target and streamline second-stage CIDIs.

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.

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.

Background Lack of coordination between screening studies for common mental disorders in primary care and community epidemiological samples impedes progress in clinical epidemiology. Short screening scales based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), the diagnostic interview used in community epidemiological surveys throughout the world, were developed to address this problem. Method Expert reviews and cognitive interviews generated CIDI screening scale (CIDI-SC) item pools for 30-day DSM-IV-TR major depressive episode (MDE), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder (PD) and bipolar disorder (BPD). These items were administered to 3058 unselected patients in 29 US primary care offices. Blinded SCID clinical reinterviews were administered to 206 of these patients, oversampling screened positives. Results Stepwise regression selected optimal screening items to predict clinical diagnoses. Excellent concordance [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)] was found between continuous CIDI-SC and DSM-IV/SCID diagnoses of 30-day MDE (0.93), GAD (0.88), PD (0.90) and BPD (0.97), with only 9–38 questions needed to administer all scales. CIDI-SC versus SCID prevalence differences are insignificant at the optimal CIDI-SC diagnostic thresholds (χ2 1 = 0.0–2.9, p = 0.09–0.94). Individual-level diagnostic concordance at these thresholds is substantial (AUC 0.81–0.86, sensitivity 68.0–80.2%, specificity 90.1–98.8%). Likelihood ratio positive (LR+) exceeds 10 and LR− is 0.1 or less at informative thresholds for all diagnoses. Conclusions CIDI-SC operating characteristics are equivalent (MDE, GAD) or superior (PD, BPD) to those of the best alternative screening scales. CIDI-SC results can be compared directly to general population CIDI survey results or used to target and streamline second-stage CIDIs.

Im Rahmen der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde eine Metaanalyse der Daten aller verfügbaren Studien (n = 109) zur medikamentösen Behandlung der drei für den Kliniker wesentlichen Angststörungen (PDA, GAD, SAD) durchgeführt. In die Metaanalyse wurden 187 Studienarme sowie die Daten von insgesamt 28785 Patienten eingeschlossen. Eine vergleichbare Metaanalyse, die alle drei Angststörungen zusammengefasst untersucht hat, wurde in dieser Form bisher nicht durchgeführt, wobei neben der zusammengefassten Analyse im Weiteren auch eine separate Betrachtung jeder einzelnen Angststörung erfolgte. Während im Rahmen aller bisher durchgeführten Metaanalysen zumeist lediglich Treated-vs.-Control-Effektstärken berechnet wurden, wurden in der vorliegenden Arbeit darüberhinaus auch Prae-Post-Effektstärken bestimmt. Dies ermöglicht einen besseren Vergleich der Wirksamkeit verschiedener Medikamente. Es ergab sich folgendes: Die in die Metaanalyse eingeschlossenen Studien zeigten trotz ähnlicher Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien sowie oftmaliger Verwendung gleicher Skalen eine hohe bis sehr hohe Heterogenität. Alle Medikamente bis auf Citalopram, Moclobemid und Opipramol zeigten einen signifikanten Unterschied zu Placebo. Die höchsten unadjustierten Treated-vs.-Control-Effektstärken konnten für Phenelzin (d = 0,98), Lorazepam und Clomipramin (d = 0,87) sowie Hydroxyzin (d = 0,79) berechnet werden. Die höchsten Prae-Post-Effektstärken wurden für Benzodiazepine (z. B. Delorazepam: d = 3,54; Bromazepam: d = 2,86; Lorazepam: d = 2,53), Quetiapin (d = 3,39), Escitalopram (d = 2,67) und Hyd-roxyzin (d = 2,56) berechnet, wobei in die Berechnung dieser Effektstärken zum Teil nur sehr wenige Primärstudien eingingen, so dass diese Ergebnisse als weniger reliabel zu werten sind. Bei Betrachtung der einzelnen Stoffgruppen erreichten die SNRIs mit d = 2,25 die höchste Prae-Post-Effektstärke, gefolgt von den Benzodiazepinen (d = 2,14) und den SSRIs (d = 2,09). Bei der Wahl eines Arzneimittels sollte auf ein angemessenes Verhältnis seines Nutzens zu seinen Risiken (Nebenwirkungen) geachtet werden. Viele der Medikamente, für die in der vorliegenden Arbeit relativ hohe Effektstärken berechnet werden konnten, weisen ein ungünstigeres Nebenwirkungsprofil als beispielsweise SNRIs und SSRIs auf. Vor allem wird aufgrund des bestehenden Abhängigkeitspotentials nicht empfohlen, Benzodiazepine routinemäßig zu verordnen. Ebenso führen trizyklische Antidepressiva häufiger zu Nebenwirkungen als SSRIs (Bandelow et al. 2008a). Weiterhin konnte in der vorliegenden Arbeit gezeigt werden, dass die Effektstärken der Pillenplacebos zwischen 1983 und 2013 stark anstiegen. Die Studien wurden mit Hilfe verschiedener Methoden zur Detektion eines Publication Bias analysiert. Hierbei ergaben sich zwar für mehrere Medikamente Hinweise auf das Vorliegen eines Publication Bias, dies hatte jedoch nicht zur Folge, dass die Annahme einer vormals berechneten signifikanten Überlegenheit des Medikamentes gegenüber Placebo wieder verworfen werden musste. Für 50,8% von insgesamt 187 Studienarmen wurden Allegiance-Effekte angenommen. Die durchschnittliche Effektstärke der Studien mit angenommenem Allegiance-Effekt unterschied sich jedoch nicht signifikant von der ohne solche Effekte. Klinisch tätige Ärzte können sich an den Ergebnissen der Metaanalyse orientieren, um – unter Berücksichtigung von potentiellen Nebenwirkungen und Kontraindikationen – für ihre Patienten das Präparat mit dem günstigsten Nutzen-Risiko-Verhältnis auszuwählen.