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.

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.

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. 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.

The short version of the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire (BPEQ-12) assesses the partner-related attachment dimensions fear of rejection, readiness for selfdisclosure, and conscious need for care. The presented study investigated the factor structure in two samples and evaluated the convergent validity of scales. The sample included N = 175 patients with panic disorder and/or agoraphobia and N = 143 healthy controls. Besides, the BPEQ, the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR), and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) were assessed as well, and the Adult Attachment Prototype Rating (AAPR) was conducted. A confirmatory factor analysis of the three factor model (using a WLSMV estimator) revealed an acceptable model fit for the entire sample, patients and controls in terms of low RMSEA and SRMR (< 0.08) and high CFI and TLI (> 0.95). We found metric, scalar, and strict measurement invariance for the presence of anxiety disorder (ΔCFI ≤ –0.01 and ΔRMSEA ≥ 0.01). However, only for fear of rejection and readiness for self-disclosure the reliability was acceptable (Cronbach’s a > 0.7), and convergent validity in terms of large correlations (r > 0.7) with the ECR scales was found in both samples. The scale conscious need for care had a questionable reliability (Cronbach’s a > 0.6) and correlated only slightly with ECR-R scales. We conclude that fear of rejection and readiness for self-disclosure of the BPEQ-12 are reliable and valid scales for measuring partner-related attachment in healthy and clinical samples.

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.

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.

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. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.

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.