Effectiveness and Changes in Brain Functions by an Occupational Therapy Program Incorporating Mindfulness in Outpatients with Anxiety and Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the efficacy of an 8-week occupational therapy program incorporating mindfulness (MOT) as a form of psychiatric rehabilitation to ameliorate residual social and occupational impairment in patients with anxiety disorders and depression. The objective was to evaluate the effects of MOT on their personal well-being and to assess the impact of MOT on brain function using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG). METHODS: This study was a randomized, wait-list control trial with assessments performed at baseline, post-intervention (9 weeks), and follow-up (18 weeks) in outpatients with anxiety disorders and depression. The MOT was conducted in small groups, comprising eight weekly 1.5-h sessions. The primary outcome was the mean score change between the pre- and post-interventions with Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) scale. Other clinical assessments and qEEG served as secondary and biological outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients (mean age: 44.1) were included in the analysis. The MOT group demonstrated a significantly improved QPR compared to the control group after adjusting for baseline covariates (p < 0.01). This improvement was sustained for 9 weeks after the 8-week intervention. In the qEEG analysis, a significant increase in current source density in the ß2 band of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was observed in the MOT group compared to the control group (p < 0.02). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that MOT improves subjective well-being and potentially, global function. This suggests that MOT may serve as a viable option for those whose symptoms have abated but who still struggle with social and occupational functioning.

Clinical characteristics and prescriptions associated with a 2-year course of rapid cycling and euthymia in bipolar disorder: a multicenter treatment survey for bipolar disorder in psychiatric clinics.

Objective: In patients with bipolar disorder (BD), rapid cycling (RC) presents a risk for a more severe illness, while euthymia (EUT) has a better prognosis. This study focused on the progression of RC and EUT, which are contrasting phenomenology, and aimed to clarify the influence of patient backgrounds and prescription patterns on these different progressions, using a large sample from the first and second iterations of a multicenter treatment survey for BD in psychiatric clinics (MUSUBI). Methods: In the cross-sectional study (MUSUBI), a questionnaire based on a retrospective medical record survey of consecutive BD cases (N = 2,650) was distributed. The first survey was conducted in 2016, and the second one in 2017. The questionnaire collected information on patient backgrounds, current episodes, and clinical and prescribing characteristics. Results: In the first survey, 10.6% of the participants had RC and 3.6% had RC for two consecutive years, which correlated with BP I (Bipolar disorder type I), suicidal ideation, duration of illness, and the use of lithium carbonate and antipsychotic medications. Possible risk factors for switching to RC were comorbid developmental disorders and the prescription of anxiolytics and sleep medication. Moreover, 16.4% of the participants presented EUT in the first survey, and 11.0% presented EUT for two consecutive years. Possible factors for achieving EUT included older age; employment; fewer psychotic symptoms and comorbid personality disorders; fewer antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anxiolytics, and more lithium prescriptions. Conclusion: RC and EUT generally exhibit conflicting characteristics, and the conflicting social backgrounds and factors contributing to their outcomes were distinctive. Understanding these clinical characteristics may be helpful in clinical practice for management of patients with BD.

Divergence of dose-response with asenapine: a cluster analysis of randomized, double-blind, and placebo control study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in psychiatric background and dose-response to asenapine in patients with schizophrenia were examined based on efficacy and safety, using data obtained in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia were classified into three clusters by a cluster analysis based on the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) subscores at baseline, using the data from a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. PANSS Marder factor scores were calculated for each cluster. The efficacy of 10 or 20 mg/day of asenapine on PANSS score was used as the primary endpoint, with the incidence of adverse events evaluated as the secondary endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 529 asenapine-treated patients were classified into 3 clusters: Cluster-P with the higher scores in positive symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and hostility/excitement, Cluster-N with higher scores in negative symptoms, and Cluster-L with overall lower scores. In Cluster-N and Cluster-L, both 10 and 20 mg/day groups showed significant improvement in PANSS scores, while only the 20 mg/day group showed a significant difference in Cluster-P. Cluster-N and Cluster-L had differences in the incidence of adverse events, but this was not seen in Cluster-P. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of asenapine 10 and 20 mg/day differed between the 3 clusters of patients. This suggests that background information regarding baseline psychiatric symptoms may affect the therapeutic response in patients with schizophrenia.