Efficacy of Hypnosis and Catalepsy Induction in Functional Neurological Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Functional Neurological Disorder (FND) experience complex patterns of motor and/or sensory symptoms. Treatment studies of psychological interventions are promising but limited. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current pilot study is to investigate the effect of treatment consisting of a combination of hypnosis and catalepsy induction on FND symptom severity. METHODS: A within-subject waiting list-control design was used with 46 patients diagnosed with FND. The treatment consisted of 10 sessions. The primary outcome measure was FND symptom severity (The Psychogenic Movement Disorder Rating Scale; PMDRS). The secondary outcome measures were psychological distress and quality of life. RESULTS: The repeated measures (RM) ANOVA for the PMDRS as outcome measure revealed a significant effect for time with a large effect size (η2 = 0.679). Pairwise comparisons indicated that the effect of time in the treatment period was significant for the measure of FND symptom severity, whereas the waiting list period was not. The effect remained stable even at 8 weeks post treatment. As for the additional measurement, general psychological distress and quality of life, no statistically significant differences between individual time points were found. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study showed that eight sessions of treatment consisting of a combination of hypnosis and catalepsy induction was effective in reducing FND symptom severity. Some explanations and limitations are provided in the paper as well as several avenues of future research.

Early symptom change contributes to the outcome prediction of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression patients: A machine learning approach.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding the association between early symptom change and later outcomes of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). This study aimed to apply machine learning algorithms to predict continuous treatment outcomes based on pre-treatment predictors and early symptom changes and to uncover whether additional variance could be explained compared to regression methods. Additionally, the study examined early subscale symptom changes to determine the most significant predictors of treatment outcome. METHODS: We investigated CBT outcomes in a large naturalistic dataset (N = 1975 depression patients). The sociodemographic profile, pre-treatment predictors, and early symptom change, including total and subscale scores were used to predict the Symptom Questionnaire (SQ)48 score at the 10th session as a continuous outcome. Different machine learners were compared to linear regression. RESULTS: Early symptom change and baseline symptom score were the only significant predictors. Models with early symptom change explained 22.0 % to 23.3 % more variance than those without early symptom change. Specifically, the baseline total symptom score, and the early symptom score changes of the subscales pertaining to depression and anxiety were the top three predictors of treatment outcome. LIMITATION: Excluded patients with missing treatment outcomes had slightly higher symptom scores at baseline, indicating possible selection bias. CONCLUSION: Early symptom change improved the prediction of treatment outcomes. The prediction performance achieved is far from clinical relevance: the best learner could only explain 51.2 % of the variance in outcomes. Compared to linear regression, more sophisticated preprocessing and learning methods did not substantially improve performance.

Design and rationale of the REStoring mood after early life trauma with psychotherapy (RESET-psychotherapy) study: a multicenter randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of adjunctive trauma-focused therapy (TFT) versus treatment as usual (TAU) for adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and childhood trauma.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, recurrent mental disorder and a leading cause of disability worldwide. A large part of adult MDD patients report a history of childhood trauma (CT). Patients with MDD and CT are assumed to represent a clinically and neurobiologically distinct MDD subtype with an earlier onset, unfavorable disease course, stress systems' dysregulations and brain alterations. Currently, there is no evidence-based treatment strategy for MDD that specifically targets CT. Given the central role of trauma in MDD patients with CT, trauma-focused therapy (TFT), adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU), may be efficacious to alleviate depressive symptoms in this patient population. METHODS: The RESET-psychotherapy study is a 12-week, single-blind, randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of TFT in 158 adults with moderate to severe MDD, as a 'stand-alone' depression diagnosis or superimposed on a persistent depressive disorder (PDD), and CT. TFT (6-10 sessions of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and/or imagery rescripting) + TAU is compared to TAU only. Assessments, including a wide range of psychological/psychiatric and biological characteristics, take place before randomization (T0), during treatment (T1), at post-treatment (T2) and at 6-month follow-up (T3). Pre-post treatment stress-related biomarkers in hair (cortisol) and blood (epigenetics and inflammation) will be assessed to better understand working mechanisms of TFT. A subgroup of 60 participants will undergo structural and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) assessments to determine pre-post treatment brain activity. The primary outcome is self-reported depression symptom severity at post-treatment, measured with the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report (IDS-SR). DISCUSSION: If adjunctive TFT efficaciously alleviates depressive symptoms in MDD patients with CT, this novel treatment strategy could pave the way for a more personalized and targeted MDD treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, registered at 08-12-2021, number of identification: NCT05149352.

Treatment outcome of alcohol use disorder outpatients with or without medically assisted detoxification.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the incremental effects of medically assisted detoxification on outpatient treatment for alcohol use disorders. The objective of this study was to compare drinking outcomes in a psychosocial treatment program between two groups of heavy drinking patients who had an alcohol use disorder: (a) one group with initial medically assisted detoxification and (b) a second group without initial medically assisted detoxification. METHOD: Analyses were conducted on 262 patients with a more severe alcohol use disorder who completed both an intake assessment and a 9-month follow-up assessment. The effect of medically assisted detoxification was determined using logistic regression analysis with a propensity score to control for possible baseline differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 262 patients, 82 (31.3%) received medically assisted detoxification. These patients were more likely to abstain from alcohol than those without medically assisted detoxification. Abstinence rates in the month before follow-up were 32.9% and 18.9%, respectively (ORadj = 3.48, p = .01, number needed to treat = 7.1). CONCLUSIONS: Medically assisted detoxification may add to the effects of outpatient psychosocial treatment for heavy drinking patients with an alcohol use disorder.

Predictive validity of treatment allocation guidelines on drinking outcome in alcohol-dependent patients.

The purpose of this study was to establish the predictive validity of guidelines for allocating patients to outpatient or inpatient treatment for an alcohol-use disorder. It was hypothesized that patients who were matched to the recommended level of care would have (a) better outcomes than patients treated at a less intensive level of care, and (b) outcomes equivalent to those of patients treated at a more intensive level of care. Matched patients were allocated according to an algorithm based on their treatment history, addiction severity, psychiatric impairment, and social stability at baseline. Outcome was measured in terms of self-reported alcohol use 30days prior to follow-up and changes in number of abstinent and heavy drinking days between intake and follow up. Of the 2,310 patients, 65.4% were successfully followed up 9.67months after intake. Only 22% of the patients were treated according to the level of care prescribed by the guidelines; 49% were undertreated; and 29% were overtreated. The results were not in line with our hypotheses. Patients treated at a more intensive level of care than recommended had favorable outcomes compared to patients treated at the recommended level of care (55.5% vs. 43.9% success). Patients allocated to the recommended level of care did not have better outcomes than those treated at a less intensive level of care (43.9% vs. 38.3% success). Based on these results, we suggest ways to improve the algorithm for allocating patients to treatment.

Guidelines for allocating outpatient alcohol abusers to levels of care: Predictive validity.

The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive validity of guidelines for allocating outpatients with an alcohol-use disorder to different levels of care in routine alcohol outpatient treatment facilities. It was hypothesized that patients matched to the recommended level of care would have (a) better outcomes than patients treated at a less intensive level of care, and (b) outcomes equivalent to patients treated at a more intensive level of care. Patients at two Dutch substance-abuse treatment centers who completed intake and were allocated at either a brief or standard outpatient treatment (n=471) were followed prospectively to determine differential outcomes for those who were and were not treated at the recommended level of car. The former patients were allocated according to an algorithm based on their treatment history, addiction severity, psychiatric impairment and social stability at baseline. 52.9% of the original sample was successfully contacted for follow-up 11 months after intake. Outcome was measured in terms of self-reported alcohol use 30 days prior to follow up and changes in number of excessive and nonexcessive drinking days between intake and follow up. Only 21% of the patients were matched to the level of care according to the guidelines. Patients allocated to the recommended level of care did not have better outcomes than those treated at a less intensive level of care, but they had outcomes comparable to patients treated at a more intensive level of care. The a priori allocation guidelines were followed for only a minority of the patients, and using them did not improve treatment outcome. Further work is needed to improve the content of the treatment allocation guidelines.

Feasibility and validity of low-budget telephonic follow-up interviews in routine outcome monitoring of substance abuse treatment.

AIMS: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is receiving growing attention. However, follow-up interviews are time-consuming and costly. This study examines the feasibility and validity of low-budget telephonic follow-up interviews for ROM in a substance abuse treatment centre (SATC). DESIGN: Observational study using data collected for routine outcome monitoring. SETTING: The study was performed in a SATC in an urban area in the Netherlands. Participants Feasibility and validity were assessed on data of 2325 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Data on pre-treatment socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were collected using electronic patient records (EPRs) and the European version of the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI). Data on intensity of treatment were also collected through the EPRs. Telephonic follow-up interviews were conducted between 9 and 10 months after intake. FINDINGS: A 53% follow-up rate was achieved; 35% of the patients could not be contacted, 3% explicitly refused and in 8% other reasons accounted for non-participation. About 50% of the interviews took place in the intended time-frame. Costs were Euro 40 (57 US dollars) per completed interview. There were indications of selection bias, because patients with cocaine as their primary problem and patients with polysubstance abuse were under-represented in the follow-up sample; the presence of these disorders is associated with negative treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing telephonic low-budget follow-up interviews for ROM is feasible, but selection bias threatens internal validity of data, limiting generalization to the total treatment population. Increased efforts to track patients for follow-up may improve generalization.

Allocation of substance use disorder patients to appropriate levels of care: feasibility of matching guidelines in routine practice in Dutch treatment centres.

AIMS: To examine the feasibility of implementing evidence-based guidelines for patient-treatment-matching to levels of care in two Dutch substance abuse treatment centres. DESIGN: Multi-centre observational follow-up study. SETTING: Two large substance abuse treatment centres (SATCs). PARTICIPANTS: All 4394 referrals to the two SATCs in 2003. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline patient characteristics needed for treatment allocation according to protocol, treatment allocation according to matching protocol, treatment allocation according to actual level of care (LOC) entered. ANALYSIS: Comparison of recommended and actual LOC entered. Evaluation of reasons for observed differences between recommended and actual LOC entered. FINDINGS: Data needed for treatment allocation according to protocol were available for 2269 (51.6%) patients. Data needed for evaluation of actual LOC entered were available for 1765 (40.2%) patients. Of these patients, 1089 (60.8%) were allocated according to protocol: 48.4% based on the guideline algorithm and 12.4% based on clinically justified deviations from this algorithm. The main reason for deviation was a different appraisal of addiction severity, made by the intake counsellor compared to the protocol. CONCLUSION: The feasibility of guideline-based treatment allocation is seriously limited due to inadequate data collection of patient characteristics and suboptimal guideline-based treatment allocation. As a consequence, only 24.4% of the patients could be evaluated as being matched properly to the treatment planned. The results indicate several barriers which limit the adequate implementation of patient-treatment-matching guidelines: problems in the infrastructure of data collection and storage and the inertia of intake staff who did not adhere to the guidelines for assessment and matching.