Tourette syndrome (TS) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) both are neuropsychiatric disorders associated with abnormalities in dopamine neurotransmission. Aims of this study were to quantify striatal D2/3 receptor availability in TS and OCD, and to examine dopamine release and symptom severity changes in both disorders following amphetamine challenge. Changes in [(11)C]raclopride binding potential (BP(ND)) were assessed using positron emission tomography before and after administration of d-amphetamine (0.3 mg kg(-1)) in 12 TS patients without comorbid OCD, 12 OCD patients without comorbid tics, and 12 healthy controls. Main outcome measures were baseline striatal D2/3 receptor BP(ND) and change in BP(ND) following amphetamine as a measure of dopamine release. Voxel-based analysis revealed significantly decreased baseline [(11)C]raclopride BP(ND) in bilateral putamen of both patient groups vs. healthy controls, differences being more pronounced in the TS than in the OCD group. Changes in BP(ND) following amphetamine were not significantly different between groups. Following amphetamine administration, tic severity increased in the TS group, which correlated with BP(ND) changes in right ventral striatum. Symptom severity in the OCD group did not change significantly following amphetamine challenge and was not associated with changes in BP(ND). This study provides evidence for decreased striatal D2/3 receptor availability in TS and OCD, presumably reflecting higher endogenous dopamine levels in both disorders. In addition, it provides the first direct evidence that ventral striatal dopamine release is related to the pathophysiology of tics.
Subthreshold panic disorder is common, and seems clinically relevant, but is milder than panic disorder. These results thus support the use of a double threshold in panic. Further research should focus on the positioning of the thresholds, the course of subthreshold panic disorder and its treatment options.
Background: Collaborative stepped care (CSC) may be an appropriate model to provide evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders in primary care. Methods: In acluster randomised controlled trial, the effectiveness of CSC compared to care as usual (CAU) for adults with panic disorder (PD) or generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) in primary care was evaluated. Thirty-one psychiatric nurses who provided their services to 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands were randomised to deliver CSC (16 psychiatric nurses, 23 practices) or CAU (15 psychiatric nurses, 20 practices). CSC was provided by the psychiatric nurses (care managers) in collaboration with the general practitioner and a consultant psychiatrist. The intervention consisted of 3 steps, namely guided self-help, cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressants. Anxiety symptoms were measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Results: We recruited 180 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD or GAD, of whom 114 received CSC and 66 received usual primary care. On the BAI, CSC wassuperior to CAU [difference in gain scores from baseline to 3 months: -5.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.28 to -1.94; 6 months: -4.65, 95% CI -7.93 to -1.38; 9 months: -5.67, 95% CI -8.97 to -2.36; 12 months: -6.84, 95% CI -10.13 to -3.55]. Conclusions: CSC, with guided self-help as a first step, was more effective than CAU for primary care patients with PD or GAD.
BackgroundAnxiety and depression are not always diagnosed and treated in primary care as has been recommended. A tailored implementation programme, which addresses key barriers for change by targeted interventions, may help to remedy this.MethodsThe effectiveness of an individually tailored implementation programme, additional to standardised training and feedback on the recognition and treatment of patients with anxiety or depression in general practice, was examined in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Participants were 46 general practitioners (GPs) from 23 general practices (12 intervention, 11 control) and 444 patients aged 18 years or older (198 intervention, 246 control) who screened positive on the extended Kessler 10. In the control group, GPs received a 1-day training in guidelines for recognition and stepped treatment for anxiety and depression. Ten months after the training session, GPs received feedback on their performance over the preceding 6 months. In the intervention group, GPs received the same training and feedback as those in the control condition; in addition, they were offered support, tailored to perceived local barriers to change. The support was delivered in the format of peer group supervisions and personalised telephone consultations. Data were based on an audit of patient records and patient surveys at baseline and after 3 and 6 months.ResultsThe tailored implementation programme led to recognition of a higher proportion of patients presenting with anxiety and depression (42% versus 31%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.01–2.53), more consultations after recognition (IRR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.14–2.78) and did not lead to more prescription of antidepressants (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.52–2.19) or referral to specialist mental health services (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 0.72–3.64). Patients in the intervention group reported better accessibility of care (effect size (ES) = 0.4; p < 0.05) and provision of information and advice (ES = 0.5; p < 0.05).ConclusionsA tailored implementation programme may enhance the recognition and treatment of patients with anxiety or depression. Further development and evaluation of the programme is warranted to determine its cost-effectiveness.Trail registrationDutch Trial Register identifier NTR1912.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0210-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.