Social phobia is a common disorder associated with significant psychosocial impairment, representing a substantial public health problem largely determined by the high prevalence, and the lifelong chronicity. Social phobia starts in early childhood or adolescence and is often comorbid with depression, other anxiety disorders, alcohol and substance abuse or eating disorders. This cascade of comorbidity, usually secondary to social phobia, increases the disability associated with the condition. The possibility that social phobia may be a trigger for later developing comorbid disorders directs attention to the need for early effective treatment as a preventive measure. The most recent drug class to be investigated for the psychopharmacological treatment of social phobia is the SSRI group for which there is growing support. The other drug classes that have been evaluated are monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), benzodiazepines, and beta-blockers. The SSRIs represent a new and attractive therapeutic choice for patients with generalized social phobia. Recently the first, large scale, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of drug treatment in generalized social phobia has been completed with paroxetine. Paroxetine was more effective in reducing the symptoms than placebo and was well tolerated. Many now regard SSRIs as the drugs of choice in social phobia because of their effectiveness and because they avoid the problems of treatment with benzodiazepines or classical MAOIs.

Background: It is commonly assumed that there are clear lines of demarcation between anxiety and depressive disorders on the one hand and psychosis on the other. Recent evidence, however, suggests that this principle may be in need of updating. Methods: Depressive and/or anxiety disorders, with no previous history of psychotic disorder, were examined for the presence of psychotic symptoms in a representative community sample of adolescents and young adults (Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology study; n=3021). Associations and consequences of psychotic symptomatology in the course of these disorders were examined in terms of demographic distribution, illness severity, onset of service use, and risk factors. Results: Around 27% of those with disorders of anxiety and depression displayed one or more psychotic symptoms, vs 14% in those without these disorders (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.89–2.66, P < .001). Presence as compared with nonpresence of psychotic symptomatology was associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P < .0058), and poorer illness course (P < .0002). In addition, there was greater persistence of schizotypal (P < .0001) and negative symptoms (P < .0170), more observable illness behavior (P < .0001), greater likelihood of service use (P < .0069), as well as more evidence of familial liability for mental illness (P < .0100), exposure to trauma (P < .0150), recent and more distant life events (P < .0006–.0244), cannabis use (P < .0009), and any drug use (P < .0008). Conclusion: Copresence of psychotic symptomatology in disorders of anxiety and depression is common and a functionally and etiologically highly relevant feature, reinforcing the view that psychopathology is represented by a network or overlapping and reciprocally impacting dimensional liabilities.

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: Whereas the role of externalizing disorders is relatively well established in predicting the onset of cannabis use (CU) or cannabis use disorder (CUD), the status of anxiety and mood disorders in predicting CU and CUD remains controversial. Objective: (1) To examine cross-sectional and prospective associations of CU and CUD with a range of mental disorders and whether anxiety and mood disorders are associated with CU/CUD after adjusting for externalizing disorders. Methods: N = 1395 community subjects aged 14–17 at baseline were followed-up at three waves prospectively over 10 years. Substance use, substance disorders and mental disorders were assessed using the DSM-IV/M-CIDI. Results: (1) The baseline prevalence rates where 19.3% at t0 for CU and 2.6% for CUD. Cumulative incidence rates at t3 were 54.3% for CU and 13.7% for CUD. (2) In cross-sectional and prospective analyses other substance use disorders, mood and anxiety disorders were associated with CU and CUD. (3) Associations of panic-anxiety with CU and of depressive and bipolar disorders with CU and CUD were significant after controlling for externalizing disorders. Conclusion: A range of psychopathological conditions, including depressive, bipolar and less consistently anxiety disorders as well as the degree of their comorbidity are significantly associated with incident CU and progression to CUD, even when controlling for externalising disorders. A better understanding of this complex interplay may result in better aetiological models and intervention strategies.

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.

Background. To examine the role of parental psychopathology and family environment for the risk of social anxiety disorder (SAD) in offspring from childhood to early adulthood, covering an observational period of 10 years. Method. A community sample of 1,395 adolescents (aged 14 to 17 years at baseline) was prospectively followed-up over the core high risk period for SAD onset. DSM-IV offspring and parental psychopathology was assessed using the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview; direct diagnostic interviews in parents were supplemented by family history reports from offspring. Parental rearing was assessed by the Questionnaire of Recalled Rearing Behavior in offspring, family functioning by the McMaster Family Assessment Device in parents. Results. Parental SAD was associated with the offspring’s risk to develop SAD (OR = 3.3, 95%CI: 1.4-8.0). Additionally, other parental anxiety disorders (OR = 2.9, 95%CI: 1.4-6.1), depression (OR = 2.6, 95%CI: 1.2-5.4) and alcohol use disorders (OR = 2.8, 95%CI: 1.3-6.1) were associated with offspring SAD. Offspring’s reports of parental overprotection, rejection and lack of emotional warmth, but not parental reports of family functioning were associated with offspring SAD. Analyses of interaction of parental psychopathology and parental rearing indicated combined effects on the risk for offspring SAD. Conclusions. These findings extend previous results in showing that both parental psychopathology and parental rearing are consistently associated with the risk for offspring SAD. As independent and interactive effects of parental psychopathology and parental rearing may have already manifested in early adolescence, these factors appear crucial and promising for targeted prevention programs.

Hintergrund. Angst- und depressive Störungen treten sehr häufig auf. Die Komorbidität zwischen beiden Störungsgruppen ist hoch. Quer- und Längsschnittstudien legen nahe, dass vorausgehende Angststörungen das Risiko sekundärer Depression erhöhen, wobei wenig zur Rolle klinischer Charakteristika von Angststörungen in diesem Zusammenhang bekannt ist. Es liegen eine Fülle von Befunden zu Risikofaktoren für Angst- und depressive Störungen vor, die bei genauerer Betrachtung allerdings eine Reihe methodischer Limitationen und offener Forschungsfragen aufweisen (z.B. viele Querschnittserhebungen, klinische Stichproben, keine vergleichenden Analysen der Risikofaktoren von Angststörungen versus Depression). Eine reliable Bewertung der diagnostischen Spezifität vs. Unspezifität von Vulnerabilitäts- und Risikofaktoren von Angst- und depressiven Störungen mit den bislang vorliegenden Ergebnissen schwer möglich ist. Fragestellungen. Es wurden Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden hinsichtlich der Korrelate und Risikofaktoren von reinen Angst- versus reinen depressiven Störungen untersucht. Durch einen Vergleich reiner Angst- mit reinen depressiven Störungen sollte eine reliablere Einschätzung der Spezifität versus Unspezifität der untersuchten Vulnerabilitäts- und Risikofaktoren erfolgen. Der zweite Fokus lag in der Analyse der Rolle von primären Angststörungen und der mit ihnen assoziierten klinischen Merkmale bei der Entwicklung sekundärer Depressionen. Methoden. Die „Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology (EDSP)“- Studie ist eine prospektive, longitudinale Studie. Eine repräsentative Bevölkerungsstichprobe von ursprünglich 3021 Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen (zu Baseline 14-24 Jahre alt) wurde dreimal befragt (eine Baseline-Erhebung sowie zwei Folgebefragungen). Zusätzlich wurden die Eltern der Probanden, die am ersten Follow-Up teilgenommen hatten, in einem Elterninterview direkt interviewt. Von 2548 Probanden lagen diagnostische Informationen von der Basisbefragung und des Follow-Up-Zeitraumes vor. Psychische Störungen wurden mit Hilfe des M-CIDI nach DSM-IV Kriterien erfasst. Darüber hinaus wurden eine Vielzahl potenzieller Risikofaktoren (z.B. Behavioral Inhibition, kritische Lebensereignisse) erhoben. Ergebnisse. Die drei wichtigsten Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit waren: a)Es konnten gemeinsame, aber auch einige spezifische Risikofaktoren für Angststörungen versus depressive Störungen nachgewiesen werden. b)Die Angststörungen stellen eine heterogene Gruppe dar: Auch innerhalb der Gruppe der Angststörungen zeichnen sich spezifische Risikofaktoren für spezifische Angststörungen ab (d.h. es fanden sich Unterschiede zwischen Spezifischer und Sozialer Phobie). c)Es wurden starke Assoziationen zwischen Angststörungen sowie der mit ihnen assoziierten Merkmale (Beeinträchtigung, Komorbidität, Panikattacken) und der Entwicklung sekundärer depressiver Störungen gefunden. Im multiplen Modell, das alle klinischen Merkmale beinhaltete, stellte sich der Faktor schwere Beeinträchtigung als bedeutendster Prädiktor heraus. Diskussion und Schlussfolgerungen. Insgesamt befürworten die Befunde dieser Arbeit eher die sog. Splitters-Perspektive von zumindest teilweise unterschiedlichen Risikofaktoren für Angst- und depressive Störungen. Einer der potentesten Risikofaktoren für depressive Störungen scheinen vorausgehende Angststörungen zu sein, der Schweregrad der Beeinträchtigung durch die Angststörung spielt dabei eine entscheidende Rolle. Eine rechtzeitige, effektive Behandlung dieser Angststörungen könnte eine sehr erfolgversprechende Strategie in der Prävention depressiver Störungen sein. Der Beeinträchtigungsgrad durch die Angststörung kann dabei zur Identifizierung von sog. Hoch-Risiko-Personen genutzt werden. / Background. Anxiety disorders and depression are frequent mental disorders; comorbidity is high. Although cross-sectional and longitudinal studies suggest that anxiety disorders increase the risk of subsequent depression, little is known about the role of clinical characteristics of anxiety disorder in this association. Furthermore, there are a lot of studies investigating risk factors of anxiety disorders and depression. Most of these studies, however, have some substantial limitations (e.g., cross-sectional design, clinical samples, lack of analyses comparing risk factors of anxiety disorders versus depression) preventing a reliable assessment of the specificity of vulnerability and risk factors for anxiety disorders and depression. Aims. The first aim of the study was to examine common and specific correlates and risk factors of pure anxiety disorders versus pure depression. The second aim was to analyse the association between anxiety disorders and subsequent depression and the role of clinical characteristics of anxiety disorders in this associations. Methods. The data are from the Munich Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology (EDSP) study. The EDSP study is a 4-year prospective-longitudinal community study, which includes both baseline and follow-up data on 2548 adolescents and young adults 14 to 24 years of age at baseline. Parents of those probands participated at the first follow-up of the study were also interviewed. DSM-IV diagnoses were made using the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI). A range of risk factors were assessed (e.g., behavioral inhibition, life events). Results. There were both common and specific risk factors of anxiety disorders and depression. Furthermore, specific risk factors for specific anxiety disorders could be identified (i.e. different risk factors of specific phobia versus social phobia were found). Anxiety disorders and their clinical characteristics (impairment, comorbidity, panic attacks) were significantly associated with the development of subsequent depression. In the final model, which included all clinical characteristics, severe impairment remained the only clinical feature that was an independent predictor of subsequent depression. Discussion and conclusions. The findings suggest that there are specific risk factors of anxiety disorders and depression. Anxiety disorders are a very powerful risk factor for subsequent depression whereas severe impairment seems to play a major role in this association. Effective treatment of anxiety disorders, specifically those associated with extreme disability, might be important for targeted primary prevention of depression. The degree of impairment of anxiety disorders could be used for the identification of individuals at highest risk for onset of depression.

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.