Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy or supportive counseling prior to exposure therapy in patients with panic disorder: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial (IMPROVE).

BACKGROUND: Exposure-based therapy is the treatment of choice for anxiety disorders, but many patients do not benefit sufficiently from it. Distressing images of threat related to the future or past may maintain the anxiety symptomatology or impede exposure therapy. An intervention that targets threat-related imagery is eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy. The main goal of this multicenter randomized controlled trial is to investigate whether EMDR therapy plus exposure therapy, relative to supportive counseling plus exposure therapy, improves treatment efficacy, tolerability, and adherence in patients with panic disorder. In addition, we will examine potential predictors of optimal treatment allocation, mechanisms of change as well as the long term effects of treatment. Finally, we will assess cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial mixed design will be conducted. Participants will be 50 patients, aged ≥ 18, diagnosed with a panic disorder. They will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions: EMDR therapy (i.e., flashforward strategy) or supportive counseling (each consisting of four weekly sessions of 90 min each) prior to exposure therapy (consisting of eight weekly sessions of 90 min each). Assessments will be made pre-treatment (T1), between-treatments (T2), post-treatment (T3), one month post-treatment (FU1) and six months post-treatment (FU2) by an assessor blind to treatment condition. The primary outcome measure is severity of panic-related symptoms. Secondary outcome measures are: tolerability of exposure therapy (initial avoidance, willingness to start exposure therapy, considered drop-out; no-show and drop-out), related symptomatology (generalized anxiety, depression), and functional impairment. DISCUSSION: The primary goals of this research are to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and adherence of EMDR therapy plus exposure therapy and supportive counseling plus exposure therapy and to identify predictors, moderators, and mediators for treatment success. This multi-center research aims to make a significant contribution to our understanding as to how treatment for patients with anxiety disorders can be optimized, and elucidate who can benefit most from this novel approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN-ISRCTN29668369: Improving anxiety treatment by modifying emotional memories before real-life exposure. Registered 27 June 2022-retrospectively registered. ISRCTN-ISRCTN29668369.

Cannabidiol enhancement of exposure therapy in treatment refractory patients with phobias: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Phobic anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent psychiatric disorders and are burdensome in terms of loss of quality of life and work productivity. Evidence-based treatments are relatively successful in the majority of patients, especially exposure therapy. However, a substantial subset of patients fails to achieve or stay in remission. Preclinical and genetic research have yielded evidence that the cannabinoid system is involved in the extinction of fear, presumed to underlie the beneficial effects of exposure therapy in phobic disorders. A cannabinoid constituent that may enhance endocannabinoid signaling is cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. Hence, the addition of CBD to exposure therapy is expected to strengthen effects of treatment. To determine the added benefit of CBD on exposure therapy, we conduct a randomized controlled trial, in which patients in whom previous treatment as usual has not yielded sufficient response receive either CBD or placebo preceding 8 exposure sessions in a double-blind fashion. A subsidiary aim is to explore which (combination of) clinical, behavioral and genetic profiles of patients are related to treatment response. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an 8-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Seventy-two patients with social phobia or panic disorder with agoraphobia with incomplete response to earlier treatment will be included from outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. Patients are randomized to augmentation of exposure therapy with 300 mg CBD or placebo. The study medication is administered orally, 2 h preceding each of the eight 90 min exposure sessions. Measurements will take place at baseline, first administration of medication, every session, mid-treatment, last administration of medication, post-treatment and at 3 and 6 months' follow-up. The primary outcome measure is the score on the Fear Questionnaire (FQ). In addition, determinants of the expected treatment enhancing effect of CBD will be explored. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to investigate whether the addition of CBD to exposure therapy is effective in reducing phobic symptoms in treatment refractory patients with social phobia or panic disorder with agoraphobia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5100 . Registered 13 March 2015. Protocol version: issue date 17 Jan 2018, protocol amendment number 7.

No Effects of D-Cycloserine Enhancement in Exposure With Response Prevention Therapy in Panic Disorder With Agoraphobia: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: D-cycloserine (DCS) is a partial N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor agonist that potentially augments response to exposure therapy in anxiety disorders by enhancing extinction learning. This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled augmentation trial examined (1) the effectiveness of adding 125 mg of DCS to exposure therapy (before or directly after the first 6 treatment sessions) in patients with panic disorder with agoraphobia and (2) the effectiveness of DCS augmentation preceding exposure relative to DCS augmentation directly postexposure. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Fifty-seven patients were allocated to 1 of 3 medication conditions (placebo and pre-exposure and postexposure DCS) as an addition to 6 exposure sessions within a 12-session exposure and response prevention protocol. The primary outcome measure was the mean score on the "alone" subscale of the Mobility Inventory (MI). FINDINGS/RESULTS: No differences were found in treatment outcome between DCS and placebo, administered either pre-exposure or postexposure therapy, although at 3-month follow-up, the DCS postexposure group compared with DCS pre-exposure, exhibited greater symptom reduction on the MI-alone subscale. Ancillary analyses in specific subgroups (responders vs nonresponders, early vs late responders, severely vs mildly affected patients) did not reveal any between-group DCS versus placebo differences. Finally, the study did not find an effect of DCS relative to placebo to be specific for successful exposure sessions. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: This study does not find an effect of augmentation with DCS in patients with severe panic disorder and agoraphobia administered either pretreatment or directly posttreatment sessions. Moreover, no preferential effects are revealed in specific subgroups nor in successful exposure sessions. Yet, a small effect of DCS administration postexposure therapy cannot be ruled out, given the relatively small sample size of this study.

Updated meta-analysis of classical fear conditioning in the anxiety disorders.

The aim of the current study was twofold: (1) to systematically examine differences in fear conditioning between anxiety patients and healthy controls using meta-analytic methods, and (2) to examine the extent to which study characteristics may account for the variability in findings across studies. Forty-four studies (published between 1920 and 2013) with data on 963 anxiety disordered patients and 1,222 control subjects were obtained through PubMed and PsycINFO, as well as from a previous meta-analysis on fear conditioning (Lissek et al.). Results demonstrated robustly increased fear responses to conditioned safety cues (CS-) in anxiety patients compared to controls during acquisition. This effect may represent an impaired ability to inhibit fear in the presence of safety cues (CS-) and/or may signify an increased tendency in anxiety disordered patients to generalize fear responses to safe stimuli resembling the conditioned danger cue (CS+). In contrast, during extinction, patients show stronger fear responses to the CS+ and a trend toward increased discrimination learning (differentiation between the CS+ and CS-) compared to controls, indicating delayed and/or reduced extinction of fear in anxiety patients. Finally, none of the included study characteristics, such as the type of fear measure (subjective vs. psychophysiological index of fear), could account significantly for the variance in effect sizes across studies. Further research is needed to investigate the predictive value of fear extinction on treatment outcome, as extinction processes are thought to underlie the beneficial effects of exposure treatment in anxiety disorders.

Cannabidiol enhancement of exposure therapy in treatment refractory patients with social anxiety disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia: A randomised controlled trial.

Preclinical research suggests that enhancing CB1 receptor agonism may improve fear extinction. In order to translate this knowledge into a clinical application we examined whether cannabidiol (CBD), a hydrolysis inhibitor of the endogenous CB1 receptor agonist anandamide (AEA), would enhance the effects of exposure therapy in treatment refractory patients with anxiety disorders. Patients with panic disorder with agoraphobia or social anxiety disorder were recruited for a double-blind parallel randomised controlled trial at three mental health care centres in the Netherlands. Eight therapist-assisted exposure in vivo sessions (weekly, outpatient) were augmented with 300 mg oral CBD (n = 39) or placebo (n = 41). The Fear Questionnaire (FQ) was assessed at baseline, mid- and post-treatment, and at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Primary analyses were on an intent-to-treat basis. No differences were found in treatment outcome over time between CBD and placebo on FQ scores, neither across (ß = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.60; 1.25]) nor within diagnosis groups (ß = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.62; 1.40]). In contrast to our hypotheses, CBD augmentation did not enhance early treatment response, within-session fear extinction or extinction learning. Incidence of adverse effects was equal in the CBD (n = 4, 10.3%) and placebo condition (n = 6, 15.4%). In this first clinical trial examining CBD as an adjunctive therapy in anxiety disorders, CBD did not improve treatment outcome. Future clinical trials may investigate different dosage regimens.

Latent class growth analyses reveal overrepresentation of dysfunctional fear conditioning trajectories in patients with anxiety-related disorders compared to controls.

Recent meta-analyses indicated differences in fear acquisition and extinction between patients with anxiety-related disorders and comparison subjects. However, these effects are small and may hold for only a subsample of patients. To investigate individual trajectories in fear acquisition and extinction across patients with anxiety-related disorders (N = 104; before treatment) and comparison subjects (N = 93), data from a previous study (Duits et al., 2017) were re-analyzed using data-driven latent class growth analyses. In this explorative study, subjective fear ratings, shock expectancy ratings and startle responses were used as outcome measures. Fear and expectancy ratings, but not startle data, yielded distinct fear conditioning trajectories across participants. Patients were, compared to controls, overrepresented in two distinct dysfunctional fear conditioning trajectories: impaired safety learning and poor fear extinction to danger cues. The profiling of individual patterns allowed to determine that whereas a subset of patients showed trajectories of dysfunctional fear conditioning, a significant proportion of patients (≥50 %) did not. The strength of trajectory analyses as opposed to group analyses is that it allows the identification of individuals with dysfunctional fear conditioning. Results suggested that dysfunctional fear learning may also be associated with poor treatment outcome, but further research in larger samples is needed to address this question.

Enhancing effects of contingency instructions on fear acquisition and extinction in anxiety disorders.

Explicit instructions regarding stimulus-threat associations increase acquisition and extinction of fear in healthy participants. The current study aimed to investigate the effect of contingency instructions on fear acquisition and extinction in patients with anxiety disorders. Patients with various anxiety disorders (N = 104) and healthy comparison participants (N = 93) participated in a differential fear conditioning task (within-subjects design). Approximately halfway through the acquisition phase, participants were instructed about the stimulus-threat association, and approximately halfway through the extinction phase, participants were informed that the unconditioned stimulus (US) would no longer be administered. Outcome measures were: fear-potentiated startle, skin conductance, fearfulness ratings, and US expectancy ratings. Patients demonstrated overall increased physiological and subjective fear responses during acquisition and extinction phases, relative to the comparison group. There were no major differences in fear acquisition and extinction between patients with different anxiety disorders. During acquisition, instructions led to increased discrimination of fear responses between a danger cue (conditioned stimulus [CS]+) and safety cue (CS-) in both patients and comparison participants. Moreover, instructions strengthened extinction of fear responses in the patient and comparison group. Patients and healthy comparison participants are better able to discriminate between danger and safety cues when they have been explicitly informed about cues that announce a threat situation. Considering the analogies between fear extinction procedures and exposure therapy, this suggests that specific instructions on stimulus-threat associations during exposure therapy might improve short-term treatment efficacy. The question remains for future studies whether instructions have a positive effect on extinction learning in the longer term. (PsycINFO Database Record

High Current Anxiety Symptoms, But Not a Past Anxiety Disorder Diagnosis, are Associated with Impaired Fear Extinction.

Although impaired fear extinction has repeatedly been demonstrated in patients with anxiety disorders, little is known about whether these impairments persist after treatment. The current comparative exploratory study investigated fear extinction in 26 patients treated for their anxiety disorder in the years preceding the study as compared to 17 healthy control subjects. Fear-potentiated startle and subjective fear were measured in a cue and context fear conditioning paradigm within a virtual reality environment. Results indicated no differences in fear extinction between treated anxiety patients and control subjects. However, scores on the Beck Anxiety Inventory across all participants revealed impaired extinction of fear potentiated startle in subjects with high compared to low anxiety symptoms over the past week. Taken together, this exploratory study found no support for impaired fear extinction in treated anxiety patients, and implies that current anxiety symptoms rather than previous patient status determine the success of extinction.

Threat expectancy bias and treatment outcome in patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Previous studies suggest that patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia (PD/A) tend to overestimate the associations between fear-relevant stimuli and threat. This so-called threat expectancy bias is thought to play a role in the development and treatment of anxiety disorders. The current study tested 1) whether patients with PD/A (N = 71) show increased threat expectancy ratings to fear-relevant and fear-irrelevant stimuli relative to a comparison group without an axis I disorder (N=65), and 2) whether threat expectancy bias before treatment predicts treatment outcome in a subset of these patients (n = 51). METHODS: In a computerized task, participants saw a series of panic-related and neutral words and rated for each word the likelihood that it would be followed by a loud, aversive sound. RESULTS: Results showed higher threat expectancy ratings to both panic-related and neutral words in patients with PD/A compared to the comparison group. Threat expectancy ratings did not predict treatment outcome. LIMITATIONS: This study only used expectancy ratings and did not include physiological measures. Furthermore, no post-treatment expectancy bias task was added to shed further light on the possibility that expectancy bias might be attenuated by treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients show higher expectancies of aversive outcome following both fear-relevant and fear-irrelevant stimuli relative to the comparison group, but this does not predict treatment outcome.