Edward B. Blanchard’s research while affiliated with Boston University and other places

Unlabelled: Acute stress responses of women are typically more reactive than that of men. Women, compared to men, may be more vulnerable to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Whether there are differences between women and men with PTSD in levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, was investigated in a pilot study. Methods: women (n=6) and men (n=3) motor vehicle accident (MVA) survivors, with PTSD, had saliva collected at 1400 h, 1800 h, and 2200 h. Cortisol levels in saliva were measured by radioimmunoassay. An interaction between gender and time of sample collection was observed due to women's cortisol levels being lower and decreasing over time, whereas men's levels were higher and increased across time of day of collection. Results of this pilot study suggest a difference in the pattern of disruption of glucocorticoid secretion among women and men with PTSD. Women had greater suppression of their basal cortisol levels than did men; however, the diurnal pattern for cortisol levels to decline throughout the day was observed among the women but not the men.

Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to a serious motor vehicle accident were randomly assigned to either group cognitive behavioral treatment(GCBT) or a minimum contact comparison group (MCC).Compared to the MCC participants (n=16), individuals who completed GCBT (n=17) showed significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, whether assessed using clinical interview or a self-report measure. Among treatment completers, 88.3% of GCBT participants did not satisfy criteria for PTSD at posttreatment assessment, relative to31.3% of the MCC participants. Examination of anxiety,depression, and pain measures did not show a unique advantage of GCBT. Treatment-related gains were maintained over a 3-month follow-up interval. Patients reported satisfaction with GCBT, and attrition from this treatment was comparable with individually administered CBTs.Results are discussed in light of modifications necessitated by the group treatment format, with suggestions for future study of this group intervention.

Although multiple clinical trials support the efficacy of psychological treatments for reducing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms, the mechanisms responsible for symptomatic improvement are unknown. One hypothesis is that psychological treatments work by alleviating comorbid psychological distress implicated in the worsening of bowel symptoms and quality of life. An alternative hypothesis assumes that changes in distress are not strictly a cause but a consequence of IBS that will decrease with symptomatic improvement. We evaluated these 2 hypotheses by applying structural equation modeling (SEM) to the data set of a large number (n = 147) of Rome II diagnosed participants randomized to CBT, psychoeducation, or wait list. Per Rome guidelines, the primary end point was global improvement of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms measured 2 weeks after a 10-week regimen. Secondary end points were distress and quality of life (QOL). SEM analyses lend support to a model in which CBT is associated with improvements in IBS symptoms, but that therapeutic gains do not depend on changes in patients' overall level of psychological distress. Symptom severity, but not clinical status (pain catastrophizing, predominant bowel habits, symptom duration, abuse, diagnosable psychiatric disorder) or relevant sociodemographic variables (eg, gender, age), moderated treatment outcome. CBT has a direct effect on global IBS symptom improvement independent of its effects on distress. Improvement in IBS symptoms is associated with improvements in the QOL, which may lower distress. Symptom improvements are not moderated by variables reflecting the mental well-being of IBS patients.

Despite the accumulation of efficacy data for cognitive-behavioral treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), efforts to investigate methods for increasing access to psychological treatments are in their infancy. The current study examined the efficacy of self-administered treatment in comparison to a wait list control. Twenty-eight participants monitored gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and completed measures of quality of life (QOL) and psychological distress prior to randomized assignment to self-help treatment or wait list. Wait listed participants later received treatment. A 3 month post-treatment follow-up was included. Seven participants completed immediate treatment; nine the wait list. The self-help treatment significantly decreased composite GI symptom scores in comparison to the wait list, but did not lead to significant improvements in QOL or distress. In the entire treated sample, including wait list crossovers, analyses showed significant improvement in abdominal pain, average GI symptoms, and perceived health and well-being. Interpretation of these results should be considered in the context of several limitations, including small sample size, brief baseline symptom monitoring, and high drop out rate. Despite these limitations, this study is an important first step in empirically validating low-cost, self-administered treatments as a first line psychological intervention for IBS.

We randomized, at two sites, 210 patients with Rome II diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), of at least moderate severity, to one of three conditions: group-based cognitive therapy (CT; n=120), psychoeducational support groups (n=46) as an active control, or intensive symptom and daily stress monitoring (n=44). One hundred eighty-eight participants completed the initial treatment. Those in symptom monitoring were then crossed over to CT. For an intent to treat analysis on a composite GI symptom measure derived from daily symptom diaries, both CT and the psychoeducational support groups were significantly more improved than those in the intensive symptom monitoring condition, but the CT and psychoeducational support group did not differ. Among treatment completers on the same composite measure of GI symptoms, again, both CT and psychoeducational support groups were statistically superior to symptom monitoring but did not differ on the symptom composite, or on any other measure. On individual IBS symptoms, both CT and psychoeducational support were statistically superior to symptom monitoring on reductions in abdominal pain and tenderness and for flatulence. Patient global ratings at the end of treatment showed the two active conditions statistically superior to symptom monitoring on change in Bowel Regularity, with CT superior to symptom monitoring on reduction in overall pain and in improvement in sense of well-being. Three-month follow-up data on 175 patients revealed maintenance of significant improvement or continued significant improvement on all IBS symptoms, including the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Group CT and psychoeducational support groups continued not to differ on any measure. We thus conclude that group CT is not superior to an attention placebo control condition.