Randomized clinical trials indicate a benefit from combining medications with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) relative to medication alone for panic disorder. Using an as-treated analysis, we evaluated whether the addition of CBT enhanced outcomes for panic disorder relative to medications alone in the primary-care setting.
Primary-care patients with panic disorder reported on their receipt of CBT and medications over the 3 months following baseline assessment. The degree to which outcomes for those who used anti-panic medications were enhanced by the receipt of at least one component of CBT was analyzed using a propensity score model that took into account observable baseline patient characteristics influencing both treatment selection and outcomes.
The addition of CBT resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvements at 3 months on anxiety sensitivity, social avoidance, and disability. Also, patients receiving CBT in the first 3 months of the study were more improved at 12 months than patients who took medications only during the first 3 months of the study.
The clinical utility of the findings are discussed in terms of the importance of primary-care physicians encouraging their panic disorder patients to receive CBT as well as medications.
"Anxiety disorders are common, costly and debilitating (e.g., Kessler, Chiu, Demler, & Walters, 2005; Saarni, Suvisaari, Sintonen et al., 2005; Sareen, Jacobi, Cox, Belik, Clara, & Stein, 2006; Stein, Roy-Byrne, Craske et al., 2005). Most individuals with anxiety disorders receive their mental health care in the primary care setting, where unfortunately many patients are unrecognized or inadequately treated (e.g., Kroenke, Spitzer, Williams, Monahan, & Lowe, 2007; Fernandez, Haro, Martinez-Alonso et al., 2007). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Anxiety disorders are common, costly and debilitating, and yet often unrecognized or inadequately treated in real world, primary care settings. Our group has been researching ways of delivering evidence-based treatment for anxiety in primary care settings, with special interest to preserving the fidelity of the treatment while at the same time promoting its sustainability once the research is over. In this paper, we describe the programs we have developed and our directions for future research. Our first study evaluated the efficacy of CBT and expert pharmacotherapy recommendations for panic disorder in primary care, using a collaborative care model of service delivery (CCAP). Symptom, disability and mental health functioning measures were superior for the intervention group compared to treatment as usual both in the short term and the long term, although also more costly. In our ongoing CALM study, we have extended our population to include panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and posttraumatic disorder, while at the same time utilizing clinicians with limited mental health care experience. In addition to pharmacotherapy management, we developed a computer-assisted CBT that guides both novice clinician and patient, thereby contributing to sustainability once the research is over. We have also incorporated a measurement based approach to treatment planning, using a web-based tracking system of patient status. To date, the computer-assisted CBT program has been shown to be acceptable to clinicians and patients. Clinicians rated the program highly, and patients engaged in the program. Future directions for our research include dissemination and implementation of the CALM program, testing potential alternations to the CALM program, and distance delivery of CALM.
Behaviour Research and Therapy 08/2009; 47(11):931-7. DOI:10.1016/j.brat.2009.07.012 · 3.85 Impact Factor
"Otto et al., 2000). In addition, evidence suggests that CBT significantly adds to the benefits of pharmacotherapy (Craske et al., 2005). CBTalone may be as effective as the combination of CBT and pharmacotherapy (Barlow et al., 2000; Telch & Lucas, 1994), and patients with panic disorder who fail to respond to pharmacotherapy can be treated successfully with CBT (Otto, Pollack, Penava, & Zucker, 1999; Pollack, Otto, Kaspi, Hammerness, & Rosenbaum, 1994). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The escalating costs of health care and other recent trends have made health care decisions of great societal import, with decision-making responsibility often being transferred from practitioners to health economists, health plans, and insurers. Health care decision making increasingly is guided by evidence that a treatment is efficacious, effective-disseminable, cost-effective, and scientifically plausible. Under these conditions of heightened cost concerns and institutional-economic decision making, psychologists are losing the opportunity to play a leadership role in mental and behavioral health care: Other types of practitioners are providing an increasing proportion of delivered treatment, and the use of psychiatric medication has increased dramatically relative to the provision of psychological interventions.Research has shown that numerous psychological interventions are efficacious, effective, and cost-effective. However, these interventions are used infrequently with patients who would benefit from them, in part because clinical psychologists have not made a convincing case for the use of these interventions (e.g., by supplying the data that decision makers need to support implementation of such interventions) and because clinical psychologists do not themselves use these interventions even when given the opportunity to do so.Clinical psychologists' failure to achieve a more significant impact on clinical and public health may be traced to their deep ambivalence about the role of science and their lack of adequate science training, which leads them to value personal clinical experience over research evidence, use assessment practices that have dubious psychometric support, and not use the interventions for which there is the strongest evidence of efficacy. Clinical psychology resembles medicine at a point in its history when practitioners were operating in a largely prescientific manner. Prior to the scientific reform of medicine in the early 1900s, physicians typically shared the attitudes of many of today's clinical psychologists, such as valuing personal experience over scientific research. Medicine was reformed, in large part, by a principled effort by the American Medical Association to increase the science base of medical school education. Substantial evidence shows that many clinical psychology doctoral training programs, especially PsyD and for-profit programs, do not uphold high standards for graduate admission, have high student-faculty ratios, deemphasize science in their training, and produce students who fail to apply or generate scientific knowledge.A promising strategy for improving the quality and clinical and public health impact of clinical psychology is through a new accreditation system that demands highquality science training as a central feature of doctoral training in clinical psychology. Just as strengthening training standards in medicine markedly enhanced the quality of health care, improved training standards in clinical psychology will enhance health and mental health care. Such a system will (a) allow the public and employers to identify scientifically trained psychologists; (b) stigmatize ascientific training programs and practitioners; (c) produce aspirational effects, thereby enhancing training quality generally; and (d) help accredited programs improve their training in the application and generation of science. These effects should enhance the generation, application, and dissemination of experimentally supported interventions, thereby improving clinical and public health. Experimentally based treatments not only are highly effective but also are cost-effective relative to other interventions; therefore, they could help control spiraling health care costs. The new Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS) is intended to accredit clinical psychology training programs that offer highquality science-centered education and training, producing graduates who are successful in generating and applying scientific knowledge. Psychologists, universities, and other stakeholders should vigorously support this new accreditation system as the surest route to a scientifically principled clinical psychology that can powerfully benefit clinical and public health.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 01/2009; 9(2):67-103. DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01036.x
"Los ataques no señalados-esperados son muy infrecuentes (sería el caso de la persona que se levanta pensando que va a tener un mal día y que sufrirá un ataque a lo largo del mismo). -Tal vez el ejemplo más puro de posible pánico espontáneo lo constituyan los ataques de pánico nocturnos o mientras se duerme, los cuales tienden a ocurrir fuera de las fases REM (generalmente al final de la fase 2 o comienzo de la 3) y se dan de forma regular en el 18-33% de los pacientes (Craske, Lang et al., 2005). 1 El que los ataques de pánico ocurran no solamente en las situaciones fóbicas, sino también sin causa aparente para las personas ha llevado a algunos a pensar que se trata de un trastorno endógeno (enfermedad metabólica con vulnerabilidad genética). En cambio, otros consideran el ataque de pánico como una reacción que ciertas personas están predispuestas a tener bajo condiciones de estrés igual que otras tienen úlceras, hipertensión o migrañas. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Podeu consultar la versió anterior a: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/358 Se abordan diversos aspectos de la agorafobia y el trastorno de pánico: naturaleza, edad de comienzo y curso, frecuencia, problemas asociados, génesis y mantenimiento, métodos e instrumentos de evaluación, y eficacia y utilidad clínica del tratamiento psicológico y farmacológico. Además, se ofrecen guías para aplicar los tratamientos psicológicos más eficaces.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.