Moderators of short- and long-term outcomes in panic control treatment and panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to test the hypothesis that externalizing and internalizing helpfulness beliefs and learning styles at baseline moderate panic severity and overall mental illness as short-term and long-term outcomes of two panic-focused psychotherapies, Panic Control Treatment (PCT) and Panic-Focused Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PFPP). METHOD: Participants were 108 adults with DSM-IV Panic Disorder with or without Agoraphobia (PD/A) who were randomized to treatment in a trial of PCT and PFPP. Piece-wise/segmented multilevel modeling was used to test three-way interactions (Treatments × Moderator × Time), with participants and therapists as random factors. Outcome variables were clinician-rated panic severity and self-rated mental illness post-treatment and during follow-up. RESULTS: Patients' externalizing (but not internalizing) helpfulness beliefs moderated mental illness outcomes during follow-up (but not during treatment); low levels of Externalization were facilitative for PFPP but not PCT. Internalizing and externalizing helpfulness beliefs and learning style did not moderate clinician-rated panic severity, whether short- or long-term. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that helpfulness beliefs and learning style have limited use in assignment to either PCT or PFPP for PD/A. Although further research is needed, low levels of helpfulness beliefs about externalizing coping may play a role in mental illness outcomes for PFPP.

Effects of panic-specific cognitive behavioural and psychodynamic psychotherapies on work ability in a doubly randomised clinical trial.

Objective: The effects of panic-specific psychotherapy on occupational functioning remain under-researched. This study tests whether two brief psychotherapies for Panic Disorder with or without Agoraphobia (PD/A) may generate improvement in work ability. Methods: Adults (N = 221) with a primary diagnosis of PD/A were randomised to wait-list, panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy (PFPP), panic control treatment (PCT), or to the choice between the two treatments. Participants completed the Work Ability Inventory (WAI) at baseline, post-treatment, and during 24-month follow-ups. Change in WAI scores were assessed using segmented multilevel linear growth models, and mediation was explored through path analysis. Results: WAI scores changed from the moderate to good range between baseline and post-treatment (SMD = 0.45; 95% CI [0.33, 0.57]) and continued to increase throughout the follow-up (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI [0.03, 0.28]) with no differences between treatments or allocation forms. In PFPP (but not in PCT) pre- to post-treatment change in WAI was mediated by reduction in panic symptoms and WAI predicted employment status and absences. Conclusions: Two brief panic specific psychotherapies, one cognitive behavioural and one psychodynamic, produced short and long-term increases in work ability.

Risk of uterine rupture in multiparous women after induction of labor with prostaglandin: A national population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether, after induction of labor with prostaglandin, multiparous (≥2 para) women have an increased risk of uterine rupture compared with nulliparous or uniparous women. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study including women who underwent induction with prostaglandin in all maternity wards in Sweden between May 1996 and December 2019 (n = 56 784). The study cohort was obtained by using data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register, which contains information from maternity and delivery records. The main outcome measure was uterine rupture. RESULTS: Overall, multiparous women induced with prostaglandin had an increased risk of uterine rupture compared with nulliparous women (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.33 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.38-8.04]; P < 0.007). Multiparous women with no previous cesarean section (CS) induced with prostaglandin had more than three times higher risk of uterine rupture (crude OR, 3.55 [95% Cl, 1.48-8.53]; P = 0.005) compared with nulliparous women and four times higher risk compared with uniparous women (OR, 4.10 [95% CI, 1.12-15.00]; P < 0.033). Multiparous women with previous CS had a decreased risk of uterine rupture compared with uniparous women with one previous CS (crude OR, 0.41 [95% Cl, 0.21-0.78]; P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Our study implies that multiparity in women with no previous CS is a risk factor for uterine rupture when induced with prostaglandin. This should be taken into consideration when deciding on the appropriate method of induction.

Exploring termination setback in a psychodynamic therapy for panic disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Termination in psychodynamic therapy (PDT) is a potentially conflictual and turbulent phase for patients, with a risk for increases in symptoms. However, few studies of PDT have assessed symptoms frequently enough during the treatment to determine whether such setbacks are in fact common in PDT. METHOD: In a doubly randomized clinical preference trial, 217 adults, female = 163; M age = 34.8 (12.6), with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia were treated with panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy (PFPP) or panic control treatment (PCT), a form of cognitive behavioral therapy. Participants completed the Panic Disorder Severity Scale Self-Report (PDSS-SR) weekly during treatment (Weeks 1-12), and 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. Using piecewise latent growth curve modeling, we tested the trajectories of change focusing on the termination phase in PFPP. RESULTS: Week-to-week improvement on the PDSS-SR stopped (a termination setback [TS]) in PFPP during Weeks 10-12, whereas PCT participants continued to improve. Larger symptom reductions up to Week 10 in PFPP predicted a more severe TS. Less avoidant attachment and less severe interpersonal problems also predicted more severe TS. The TSs tended to last, as evidenced by inferior outcomes, up to the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of a TS in PDT. Resurgence of symptoms as termination approached was more common in PFPP than in PCT. Studies involving weekly assessment of primary and comorbid symptoms, as well as qualitative analyses of the patient experiences of the therapeutic process during termination, in different forms of PDT, are warranted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Preferences for panic control treatment and panic focused psychodynamic psychotherapy for panic disorder - who chooses which and why?

Objective: Few studies have examined factors associated with patient's choice of particular psychological treatments. The present study explores possible associations to, and the reasons given for, patient's choice of Panic Control Treatment (PCT) or Panic-Focused Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PFPP) for Panic Disorder with or without Agoraphobia (PD/A).Method: Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were applied to data obtained from 109 adults with PD/A who were randomized to the Choice condition in the doubly randomized controlled preference trial from which this data are drawn.Results: The strongest associations were between treatment credibility ratings and the treatment choice (d = -1.00 and 1.31, p < .01, for PCT and PFPP respectively). Treatment choice was also moderately associated with patient characteristics, treatment helpfulness beliefs, and learning style. Qualitative analysis revealed that patients gave contrasting reasons for their treatment choice; either a focus on the present, symptom reduction and problem-solving for those who chose PCT or a focus on the past, symptom understanding and reflection for those who chose PFPP.Conclusions: When offered a choice between two evidence-based psychotherapies for PD/A, the resulting choice was primarily a function of the patient's beliefs about the chosen therapy, its potential for success, and their preferred learning style.

The Effect of Patient's Choice of Cognitive Behavioural or Psychodynamic Therapy on Outcomes for Panic Disorder: A Doubly Randomised Controlled Preference Trial.

INTRODUCTION: It remains unclear whether offering psychiatric patients their preferred treatment influences outcomes at the symptom level. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether offering patients with panic disorder with/without agoraphobia (PD/A) a choice between 2 psychotherapies yields superior outcomes to random assignment. METHODS: In a doubly randomised, controlled preference trial (DRCPT), 221 adults with PD/A were randomly assigned to: choosing panic-focused psychodynamic therapy (PFPP) or panic control treatment (PCT; a form of cognitive behavioural therapy); random assignment to PFPP or PCT; or waiting list control. Primary outcomes were PD/A severity, work status and work absences at post-treatment assessment. Outcomes at post-treatment assessment, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups were assessed using segmented multilevel linear growth models. RESULTS: At post-treatment assessment, the choice and random conditions were superior to the control for panic severity but not work status/absences. The choice and random conditions did not differ during treatment or follow-up for the primary outcomes. For panic severity, PCT was superior to PFPP during treatment (standardised mean difference, SMD, -0.64; 95% confidence interval, CI, -1.02 to -0.25); PFPP was superior to PCT during follow-up (SMD 0.62; 95% CI 0.27-0.98). There was no allocation by treatment type interaction (SMD -0.57; 95% CI -1.31 to 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have found that offering patients their preferred treatment yields small to moderate effects but have not employed designs that could rigorously test preference effects. In this first DRCPT of 2 evidence-based psychotherapies, allowing patients with PD/A to choose their preferred treatment was not associated with improved outcomes. Further DRCPTs are needed.

Psychometric analysis of the Swedish panic disorder severity scale and its self-report version.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia (PDA or PD, respectively), is a major public health problem. After having established a PD diagnosis based on the DSM or the ICD systems, the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) is the most widely used interview-based instrument for assessing disorder severity. There is also a self-report version of the instrument (PDSS-SR); both exist in a Swedish translation but their psychometric properties remain untested. METHODS: We studied 221 patients with PD/PDA recruited to a randomized controlled preference trial of cognitive-behavioral and brief panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy. In addition to PDSS and PDSS-SR the participants completed self-reports including the Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure, Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, Bodily Sensations Questionnaire and the Mobility Inventory for Agoraphobia. RESULTS: PDSS and PDSS-SR possessed excellent psychometric properties (internal consistency, test-retest reliability) and convergent validity. A single factor structure for both versions was not confirmed. In terms of clinical utility, the PDSS had very high inter-rater reliability and correspondence with PD assessed via structured diagnostic interview. Both versions were sensitive to the effects of PD-focused treatment, although subjects scored systematically lower on the self-report version. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed the reliability and validity of the Swedish versions of PDSS and PDSS-SR. Both versions were highly sensitive to the effects of two PD-focused treatments and can be used both in clinical and research settings. However, further investigation of the factor structures of both the PDSS and PDSS-SR is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01606592.

The POSE study - panic control treatment versus panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy under randomized and self-selection conditions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder with or without agoraphobia is a commonly occurring disorder affecting 2 to 3% of the population in Sweden. Untreated, panic disorder is a chronic condition that significantly increases the risk for psychiatric comorbidity, morbidity and mortality, employment difficulties, and healthcare utilization. Cognitive behavioral approaches are the recommended first-line treatment for panic disorder; however, many patients in routine care receive another evidence-based psychotherapy, including psychodynamic therapy. Allowing patients to choose among evidence-based approaches to panic disorder may improve outcomes and reduce overall health costs. Trials comparing the 'gold standard' treatment for panic disorder to other evidence-based psychotherapies are needed, and also trials that can separate patient preferences for treatment from randomization effects on outcome, disability and healthcare utilization in the longer term. METHODS/DESIGN: A phase 2/3 doubly-randomized controlled trial carried out in routine care with 216 adults (aged 18 to 70 years) with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV Panic Disorder (with or without Agoraphobia). Within each clinic, patients are randomized to self-selection, random assignment of treatment, or wait-list. Patients choose or are randomly assigned to either Panic Control Treatment or Panic-Focused Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. Primary outcomes are changes in panic symptom severity, occupational status, and sickness-related absences from work at post-treatment and 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include changes in agoraphobic avoidance, psychiatric comorbidity, disability, and healthcare utilization. The study also employs elements of an effectiveness trial as therapist and service-related effects on outcome will be estimated. Putative change mechanisms for the two treatments are also assessed. DISCUSSION: Cognitive behavioral and psychodynamic therapies are both evidence-based approaches that are routinely offered to panic disordered patients in Sweden. However, little is known about the relative effectiveness of these two approaches for panic/agoraphobia, work-related disability and healthcare utilization over the longer term. The current trial (POSE) also addresses the important but understudied issue of whether patient preference for a particular psychotherapeutic approach moderates outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01606592 (registered 19 March 2012).

BASE--2nd generation software for microarray data management and analysis.

BACKGROUND: Microarray experiments are increasing in size and samples are collected asynchronously over long time. Available data are re-analysed as more samples are hybridized. Systematic use of collected data requires tracking of biomaterials, array information, raw data, and assembly of annotations. To meet the information tracking and data analysis challenges in microarray experiments we reimplemented and improved BASE version 1.2. RESULTS: The new BASE presented in this report is a comprehensive annotable local microarray data repository and analysis application providing researchers with an efficient information management and analysis tool. The information management system tracks all material from biosource, via sample and through extraction and labelling to raw data and analysis. All items in BASE can be annotated and the annotations can be used as experimental factors in downstream analysis. BASE stores all microarray experiment related data regardless if analysis tools for specific techniques or data formats are readily available. The BASE team is committed to continue improving and extending BASE to make it usable for even more experimental setups and techniques, and we encourage other groups to target their specific needs leveraging on the infrastructure provided by BASE. CONCLUSION: BASE is a comprehensive management application for information, data, and analysis of microarray experiments, available as free open source software at http://base.thep.lu.se under the terms of the GPLv3 license.