Psychotic depression in hospitalized patients: Longitudinal outcomes of psychotic vs. nonpsychotic depression among inpatients.

Even though psychotic depression is related to worse outcomes than nonpsychotic depression, there is increasing evidence that this greater severity is not solely explained by the depressive symptoms. We evaluated the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the differences in clinical outcomes of psychiatric hospitalization between psychotic and non-psychotic depression. Two-hundred-eighty-eight depressive inpatients were assessed within 72 h after hospitalization and 24 h before discharge. We compared scores of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-items (HDRS-17), Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) between psychotic and nonpsychotic patients. Instruments were compared both cross-sectionally - on admission and discharge - and longitudinally. Longitudinal outcomes were corrected for potential confounders (sex, age, age at disease onset, years of study, previous history of mania/hypomania, electroconvulsive therapy in current hospitalization, history of attempted suicide, number of suicide attempts, and previous hospitalizations). One-hundred-thirty-one depressive inpatients (45.4%) presented psychotic features. Both groups showed similar HDRS-17 scores at admission and discharge. However, psychotic patients had worse scores on BPRS, CGI, and GAF at both timepoints. Both groups had similar improvement on HDRS-17 (P = 0.75), CGI (P = 0.5), and GAF (P = 0.84), but psychotic patients had greater improvement on BPRS (P < 0.001). Psychotic inpatients showed worse clinical and functional parameters. Nonetheless, the groups did not differ in depressive symptom severity. These findings reinforce the hypothesis that depressive episode with psychotic features is a more severe form of the disease irrespective of intensity of affective symptomatology.

Is it all grist to the mill? Wandering between indications for psychoanalytic treatment and the analytic field.

Determining the indications and contraindications for psychoanalytic treatment seems crucial to achieve therapeutic success and improve treatment effectiveness. In reviewing the classic literature on the topic, aspects such as age, diagnosis, motivation for treatment, present moment in life, ability to gain insight, psychic suffering when seeking treatment, defensive behaviors, and frustration tolerance are clearly analyzed by therapists/analysts when indicating psychoanalytic treatments. However, traditionally, most criteria underlying such indications date back to a time when the therapeutic relationship was viewed merely as a therapist treating a patient, with no regard to the therapeutic relationship itself. The goal of this article was to critically review the relevance and current adequacy of indications for psychoanalytic treatment, in view of advancements in knowledge on the analytic field. Considering cases that do not evolve as expected according to the indications, patients who are better suited to certain therapists, and therapist-patient pairs that modify their interaction over the course of treatment, the main question remains on how to identify the necessary elements in evaluating a candidate patient for psychoanalytic treatment, as well as the significant elements of therapeutic action.

A hipermodernidade e a clínica psicanalítica / Hypermodernity and the psychoanalytic clinic

A partir do conceito de hipermodernidade proposto por Lipovetsky, discute-se acerca das possíveis repercussões psíquicas dos movimentos e transformações sociais identificados pelo filósofo, bem como sobre os desafios que essas mudanças propõem à psicanálise nos dias atuais. Compreender as vicissitudes da cultura em que o sujeito está inserido instrumentaliza o terapeuta para analisar, com seu paciente, a forma como ele integra as demandas coletivas e próprias do seu tempo com suas necessidades individuais. O paciente hipermoderno nos interroga acerca das condições de intervenção psicanalítica possíveis nos dias de hoje. Suas queixas são diferentes daquelas direcionadas a Freud. É, portanto, fundamental que psicoterapeutas estejam em contato com essas novas construções sociais e mantenham uma postura continente e não apocalíptica.(AU)

From the hypermodernity concept proposed by Lipovetsky, some discussions can be placed on the possible psychological repercussion of movements and social transformations, identified by the philosopher, as well as, the challenges that they propose to psychoanalysis nowadays. Understanding the vicissitudes of the culture in which the subject is inserted, equips the therapist to analyze, together with his patient, the way how he integrates the collective and personal demands of his time to his individual needs. The hypermodern patient questions us regarding the possible psychoanalytic intervention conditions of our time. Their complaints are different to those directed at Freud. Therefore, it is vital that psychotherapists be in contact with these new social constructions and maintains a containing behavior which is not apocalyptic.(AU)

Is it all grist to the mill? Wandering between indications for psychoanalytic treatment and the analytic field / Caiu na rede é peixe? Entre as indicações de tratamento psicanalítico e o campo analítico

Determining the indications and contraindications for psychoanalytic treatment seems crucial to achieve therapeutic success and improve treatment effectiveness. In reviewing the classic literature on the topic, aspects such as age, diagnosis, motivation for treatment, present moment in life, ability to gain insight, psychic suffering when seeking treatment, defensive behaviors, and frustration tolerance are clearly analyzed by therapists/analysts when indicating psychoanalytic treatments. However, traditionally, most criteria underlying such indications date back to a time when the therapeutic relationship was viewed merely as a therapist treating a patient, with no regard to the therapeutic relationship itself. The goal of this article was to critically review the relevance and current adequacy of indications for psychoanalytic treatment, in view of advancements in knowledge on the analytic field. Considering cases that do not evolve as expected according to the indications, patients who are better suited to certain therapists, and therapist-patient pairs that modify their interaction over the course of treatment, the main question remains on how to identify the necessary elements in evaluating a candidate patient for psychoanalytic treatment, as well as the significant elements of therapeutic action

Determinar critérios de indicação e contraindicação para tratamentos psicanalíticos parece um ponto técnico crucial para a obtenção de sucesso terapêutico e a elevação de seus índices de efetividade. Na revisão da literatura clássica sobre o tema, percebe-se que a idade, o diagnóstico do paciente, a motivação para tratamento, o momento de vida, a capacidade de insight, o sofrimento psíquico apresentado no momento da busca de tratamento, o estilo defensivo e a tolerância à frustração são alguns dos pontos analisados pelos terapeutas/analistas para indicar tratamentos psicanalíticos. Contudo, classicamente, tais indicações provêm de um período em que a relação terapêutica era vista meramente como um terapeuta atendendo um paciente, sem levar em conta a relação terapêutica propriamente dita. O objetivo deste artigo foi revisar criticamente a relevância e pertinência atual das indicações para tratamento psicanalítico, tendo em vista a evolução dos conhecimentos sobre o campo analítico. Considerando casos que não evoluem da maneira esperada segundo as indicações, pacientes que se adaptam melhor a determinados terapeutas e duplas que modificam sua interação ao longo do tempo de tratamento, a principal questão continua sendo como identificar quais seriam os elementos necessários na avaliação de um paciente candidato a tratamento psicanalítico, bem como os elementos significativos da ação terapêutica