stress disorder, post-traumatic

Importance: Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is a first-line treatment for most mental disorders. However, no meta-analytic study has yet integrated the results of randomized clinical trials on CBT across different disorders, using uniform methodologies and providing a complete overview of the field.

Objective: To examine the effect sizes of CBT for 4 anxiety disorders, 2 eating disorders, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychotic and bipolar disorders on symptoms of the respective disorders using uniform methodologies for data extraction, risk of bias (RoB) assessment, and meta-analytic techniques.

Data sources: Major bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase for all disorders) were searched up to January 1, 2024, for each disorder separately. Data analysis was performed from August 2024 to January 2025.

Study selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing CBT with inactive control conditions in adults with 1 of the mental disorders established through a clinical interview were included.

Data extraction and synthesis: Basic characteristics of patients, CBT, and studies were extracted. RoB was assessed with the Cochrane RoB tool 2. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (Hedges g) indicating the difference between CBT and controls at posttreatment on symptoms of the respective disorders.

Results: A total of 375 trials (423 comparisons) between CBT and controls were included among 32 968 patients. The overall mean (SD) patient age was 43.4 (13.7) years, and the mean (SD) proportion of women was 0.68 (0.24). Effect sizes for CBT compared to all control conditions (g) were lower than 0.5 for bipolar and psychotic disorder; between 0.5 and 1.0 for panic, social anxiety, and generalized anxiety disorders, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorders, depression, and OCD; and larger than 1.0 for PTSD and specific phobias (range of effect sizes: 0.31 for bipolar disorder to 1.27 for PTSD). Large effect sizes (g > 0.94) were observed in waitlist-controlled trials, a control condition mostly used in anxiety and eating disorders, PTSD, and OCD. Trials using care as usual showed more modest effect sizes (0.22-1.13). Study dropout rates within the CBT conditions ranged from 8% for specific phobia to 24% for PTSD.

Conclusions and relevance: In this unified series of meta-analyses, CBT was probably effective in the treatment of mental disorders, including major depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, OCD, and eating disorders, and possibly effective in psychotic and bipolar disorders. However, the effect sizes depended on the type of control condition.

Author/s:

Pim Cuijpers, Mathias Harrer, Clara Miguel, Marketa Ciharova, Davide Papola, Djordje Basic, Cristina Botella

The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder: Synopsis of the 2023 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

Erin Blanchette — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:40:40 +0000

Date Added:

March 12, 2024

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American College of Physicians

Publication Date:

February 27, 2024

URL:

The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder: Synopsis of the 2023 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M23-2757

Keywords

PTSD

veterans

Veterans Health

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Defense

antidepressants

PMID (1):

38408360

MeSH

Stress Disorders

stress disorder, post-traumatic

Veterans

antidepressive agents

cannabis

Traumatic

Acute

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Recommendations from the Depts of Veterans Affairs and Defense regarding diagnosis and management of PTSD and acute stress disorders. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Description: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) worked together to revise the 2017 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. This article summarizes the 2023 clinical practice guideline (CPG) and its development process, focusing on assessments and treatments for which evidence was sufficient to support a recommendation for or against.

Methods: Subject experts from both departments developed 12 key questions and reviewed the published literature after a systematic search using the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing of outcomes measurement, and setting) method. The evidence was then evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. Recommendations were made after consensus was reached; they were based on quality and strength of evidence and informed by other factors, including feasibility and patient perspectives. Once the draft was peer reviewed by an external group of experts and their inputs were incorporated, the final document was completed.

Recommendations: The revised CPG includes 34 recommendations in the following 5 topic areas: assessment and diagnosis, prevention, treatment, treatment of nightmares, and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with co-occurring conditions. Six recommendations on PTSD treatment were rated as strong. The CPG recommends use of specific manualized psychotherapies over pharmacotherapy; prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing psychotherapy; paroxetine, sertraline, or venlafaxine; and secure video teleconferencing to deliver recommended psychotherapy when that therapy has been validated for use with video teleconferencing or when other options are unavailable. The CPG also recommends against use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, or cannabis-derived products. Providers are encouraged to use this guideline to support evidence-based, patient-centered care and shared decision making to optimize individuals' health outcomes and quality of life.

Author/s:

Paula P Schnurr, Jessica L Hamblen, Jonathan Wolf, Rachael Coller, Claire Collie, Matthew A Fuller, Paul E Holtzheimer, Ursula Kelly, Ariel J Lang, Kate McGraw, Joshua C Morganstein, Sonya B Norman, Katie Papke, Ismene Petrakis, David Riggs, James A Sall, Brian Shiner, Ilse Wiechers, Marija S Kelber

The Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC-PTSD)

Jeffrey Wilson — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:54:45 +0000

Date Added:

October 18, 2018

Journal/Publication:

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

1206-1211

URL:

The Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5)

Type:

Clinical Decision Aids, Practice Management Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1007/s11606-016-3703-5

Keywords

PTSD

post-traumatic stress disorder

DSM

PMID (1):

27170304

MeSH

stress disorder, post-traumatic

self report

diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

patient health questionnaire

The PC-PTSD is a 4-item screen that was designed for use in primary care and other

medical settings and is currently used to screen for PTSD in veterans at the VA.

Free full text

BACKGROUND

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is associated with increased health care utilization, medical morbidity, and tobacco and alcohol use. Consequently, screening for PTSD has become increasingly common in primary care clinics, especially in Veteran healthcare settings where trauma exposure among patients is common.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to revise the Primary Care PTSD screen (PC-PTSD) to reflect the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) and to examine both the diagnostic accuracy and the patient acceptability of the revised measure.

DESIGN

We compared the PC-PTSD-5 results with those from a brief psychiatric interview for PTSD. Participants also rated screening preferences and acceptability of the PC-PTSD-5.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 398 Veterans participated in the study (response rate = 41 %). Most of the participants were male, in their 60s, and the majority identified as non-Hispanic White.

MEASURES

The PC-PTSD-5 was used as the screening measure, a modified version of the PTSD module of the MINI-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used to diagnose DSM-5 PTSD, and five brief survey items were used to assess acceptability and preferences.

KEY RESULTS

The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.941; 95 % C.I.: 0.912– 0.969). Whereas a cut score of 3 maximized sensitivity (κ[1]) = 0.93; SE = .041; 95 % C.I.: 0.849–1.00), a cut score of 4 maximized efficiency (κ[0.5] = 0.63; SE = 0.052; 95 % C.I.: 0.527–0.731), and a cut score of 5 maximized specificity (κ[0] = 0.70; SE = 0.077; 95 % C.I.: 0.550–0.853). Patients found the screen acceptable and indicated a preference for administration by their primary care providers as opposed to by other providers or via self-report.

CONCLUSIONS

The PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated strong preliminary results for diagnostic accuracy, and was broadly acceptable to patients.

Author/s:

Prins, Annabel, Bovin, Michelle J., Smolenski, Derek J., Marx, Brian P., Kimmerling, Rachel, Jenkins-Guarnieri, Michael A., Kaloupek, Danny G.