-
Genes Nov 2020(1) Background: Although panic disorder (PD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders severely impacting quality of life, no effective genetic testing exists; known...
(1) Background: Although panic disorder (PD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders severely impacting quality of life, no effective genetic testing exists; known data on possible genetic biomarkers is often scattered and unsystematic which complicates further studies. (2) Methods: We used PathwayStudio 12.3 (Elsivier, Netherlands) to acquire literature data for further manual review and analysis. 229 articles were extracted, 55 articles reporting associations, and 32 articles reporting no associations were finally selected. (3) Results: We provide exhaustive information on genetic biomarkers associated with PD known in the scientific literature. Data is presented in two tables. Genes and may be considered the most promising for PD diagnostic to date. (4) Conclusions: This review illustrates current progress in association studies of PD and may indicate possible molecular mechanisms of its pathogenesis. This is a possible basis for data analysis, novel experimental studies, or developing test systems and personalized treatment approaches.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Biomarkers; Catechol O-Methyltransferase; Genetic Markers; Genetic Testing; Humans; Panic Disorder; Serotonin Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins
PubMed: 33158196
DOI: 10.3390/genes11111310 -
Annali Di Igiene : Medicina Preventiva... 2021The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have changed into a global crisis. Psychologically, this process of alteration can lead to feelings of fear,...
INTRODUCTION
The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have changed into a global crisis. Psychologically, this process of alteration can lead to feelings of fear, insecurity, and anxiety. This fear and anxiety can be caused by a variety of factors. However, due to the lack of extensive studies at this time, there are little data on these conditions related to COVID-19. Therefore, in this narrative review, we have tried to identify the most important possible causes of anxiety and fear due to this disease, based on logical shreds of evidence. Then we tried to discuss the consequences and ways to manage and prevent them.
METHODS
The current focus was on three major axes of corona-phobia, fear and anxiety. PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar and authoritative news and information sources were considered as the data sources.
RESULTS
Findings from the analysis of the results revealed that, in addition to the real and the logical reasons which belong to the intrinsic properties of SARS-CoV-2, some misleadings and misconceptions induced by media, governmental policies, public awareness level, and non-scientific speculations and contradictory data expressed by experts, researchers and scientific societies, could provide the way for the development of corona-phobia, and fear.
CONCLUSIONS
Each of these causal components, in its place, leads to some degrees of psychological disorders and subsequent consequences and complications. Finally, here we reviewed, summarized the previous research findings on how to prevent and manage this type of psychological disorder, and made comparisons.
Topics: Anxiety; COVID-19; Communication; Consumer Health Information; Culture; Dissent and Disputes; Expert Testimony; Fear; Health Policy; Humans; Information Dissemination; Mass Media; Pandemics; Phobic Disorders; Quarantine; SARS-CoV-2; Trust
PubMed: 33908601
DOI: 10.7416/ai.2021.2446 -
PloS One 2017It has been hypothesised that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may induce patients to conclude that they have been... (Review)
Review
It has been hypothesised that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may induce patients to conclude that they have been randomized to the active arm of the trial, leading to the breaking of blind. This may enhance the expectancies for improvement and the therapeutic response. The main objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the efficacy of antidepressants in panic disorder is mediated by the perception of adverse events. The present analysis is based on a systematic review of published and unpublished randomised trials comparing antidepressants with placebo for panic disorder. The Baron and Kenny approach was applied to investigate the mediational role of adverse events in the relationship between antidepressants treatment and efficacy. Fourteen placebo-controlled antidepressants trials were included in the analysis. We found that: (a) antidepressants treatment was significantly associated with better treatment response (ß = 0.127, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.21, p = 0.003); (b) antidepressants treatment was not associated with adverse events (ß = 0.094, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.24, p = 0.221); (c) adverse events were negatively associated with treatment response (ß = 0.035, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.05, p = 0.022). Finally, after adjustment for adverse events, the relationship between antidepressants treatment and treatment response remained statistically significant (ß = 0.122, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23, p = 0.039). These findings do not support the hypothesis that the perception of adverse events in placebo-controlled antidepressant clinical trials may lead to the breaking of blind and to an artificial inflation of the efficacy measures. Based on these results, we argue that the moderate therapeutic effect of antidepressants in individuals with panic disorder is not an artefact, therefore reflecting a genuine effect that doctors can expect to replicate under real-world conditions.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Humans; Panic Disorder
PubMed: 28575031
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178617 -
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences Dec 2014Backgrounds. The extent to which psychiatric disorders are associated with an increased risk of violence to partners is unclear. This review aimed to establish risk of...
Backgrounds. The extent to which psychiatric disorders are associated with an increased risk of violence to partners is unclear. This review aimed to establish risk of violence against partners among men and women with diagnosed psychiatric disorders. Methods. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Searches of eleven electronic databases were supplemented by hand searching, reference screening and citation tracking of included articles, and expert recommendations. Results. Seventeen studies were included, reporting on 72 585 participants, but only three reported on past year violence. Pooled risk estimates could not be calculated for past year violence against a partner and the three studies did not consistently report increased risk for any diagnosis. Pooled estimates showed an increased risk of having ever been physically violent towards a partner among men with depression (odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.5-3.3), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.3-4.4) and panic disorder (OR 2.5, 95% CI C% 1.7-3.6). Increased risk was also found among women with depression (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.1-2.8), GAD (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.9-3.0) and panic disorder (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.5). Conclusions. Psychiatric disorders are associated with high prevalence and increased odds of having ever been physically violent against a partner. As history of violence is a predictor of current violence, mental health professionals should ask about previous partner violence when assessing risk.
PubMed: 23962668
DOI: 10.1017/S2045796013000450 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2022Although anxiety is highly represented in the medically ill and its occurrence has relevant clinical implications, it often remains undetected and not properly treated....
BACKGROUND
Although anxiety is highly represented in the medically ill and its occurrence has relevant clinical implications, it often remains undetected and not properly treated. This systematic review aimed to report on anxiety, either symptom or disorder, in patients who suffer from a medical illness.
METHODS
English-language papers reporting on anxiety in medically ill adults were evaluated. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2021. Search term was "anxiety" combined using the Boolean "AND" operator with "medically ill/chronic illness/illness/disorder/disease." Risk of bias was assessed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools-Checklist for Prevalence Studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed.
RESULTS
Of 100,848 citations reviewed, 329 studies met inclusion criteria. Moderate or severe anxious symptoms were common among patients with cardiovascular, respiratory, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, endocrine, musculoskeletal system or connective tissue, dermatological diseases, cancer, AIDS and COVID-19 infections. The most common anxiety disorder was generalized anxiety disorder, observed among patients with cardiovascular, respiratory, central nervous system, dermatologic diseases, cancer, primary aldosteronism, amenorrhea, and COVID-19 infection. Panic disorder was described for cardiovascular, respiratory, dermatology diseases. Social anxiety was found for cardiovascular, respiratory, rheumatoid diseases. Specific phobias were relatively common in irritable bowel syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux, end-stage renal disease.
CONCLUSION
Anxiety is a major challenge in medical settings. Recognition and proper assessment of anxiety in patients who suffer from a medical illness is necessary for an appropriate management. Future reviews are warranted in order also to clarify the causal and temporal relationship between anxiety and organic illness.
PubMed: 35722552
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.873126 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2017Various psychological interventions are effective for reducing symptoms of anxiety when used alone, or as an adjunct to anti-anxiety medications. Recent studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Various psychological interventions are effective for reducing symptoms of anxiety when used alone, or as an adjunct to anti-anxiety medications. Recent studies have further indicated that smartphone-supported psychological interventions may also reduce anxiety, although the role of mobile devices in the treatment and management of anxiety disorders has yet to be established.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting the effects of psychological interventions delivered via smartphone on symptoms of anxiety (sub-clinical or diagnosed anxiety disorders). A systematic search of major electronic databases conducted in November 2016 identified 9 eligible RCTs, with 1837 participants. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate the standardized mean difference (as Hedges' g) between smartphone interventions and control conditions.
RESULTS
Significantly greater reductions in total anxiety scores were observed from smartphone interventions than control conditions (g=0.325, 95% C.I.=0.17-0.48, p<0.01), with no evidence of publication bias. Effect sizes from smartphone interventions were significantly greater when compared to waitlist/inactive controls (g=0.45, 95% C.I.=0.30-0.61, p<0.01) than active control conditions (g=0.19, 95% C.I.=0.07-0.31, p=0.003).
LIMITATIONS
The extent to which smartphone interventions can match (or exceed) the efficacy of recognised treatments for anxiety has yet to established.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that psychological interventions delivered via smartphone devices can reduce anxiety. Future research should aim to develop pragmatic methods for implementing smartphone-based support for people with anxiety, while also comparing the efficacy of these interventions to standard face-to-face psychological care.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Mental Health; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smartphone
PubMed: 28456072
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.04.046 -
Journal of the Academy of... 2022To inform the future development of consultation-liaison psychiatry services, we need accurate information on the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in the general...
BACKGROUND
To inform the future development of consultation-liaison psychiatry services, we need accurate information on the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in the general hospital inpatient setting. Systematic reviews have summarized the literature on specific aspects of this broad topic, but there has been no high-level overview that aggregates their findings and identifies gaps in the relevant literature.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to produce a comprehensive overview of the field, summarizing the research literature on the prevalence of psychiatric disorders (i.e., interview-based psychiatric diagnoses) in general hospital inpatients. We did this using a systematic umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews), which is the best and most efficient method for summarizing a broad area of research.
METHODS
We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Scopus from database inception to September 2021 for systematic reviews that provided a pooled prevalence estimate, or prevalence range, for interview-diagnosed psychiatric disorders in general hospital inpatients. Two reviewers independently assessed articles and extracted data. The review is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019125574.
RESULTS
We screened 11,728 articles and included 10 systematic reviews in our umbrella review. We were able to extract pooled prevalence estimates from these as follows: major depression 12% to 20%, any anxiety disorder 8%, generalized anxiety disorder 5%, panic disorder 3%, delirium 15%. We were only able to extract a prevalence range for dementia, which was 3% to 63%. We found no systematic reviews from which we could extract prevalence data for the other psychiatric disorders that we included in our searches, indicating important gaps. From these data, we estimated that approximately one-third of inpatients have a psychiatric disorder.
CONCLUSIONS
Psychiatric disorders are very common in general hospital inpatients. While the planning of consultation-liaison psychiatry services will benefit from more research on the prevalence of each of the full range of disorders encountered in the inpatient setting, our findings indicate that we already know enough to justify increased and more population-based service provision.
Topics: Humans; Hospitals, General; Inpatients; Mental Disorders; Prevalence; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35491011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.04.004 -
Tijdschrift Voor Psychiatrie 2016Heartrate variability biofeedback (HRVB) is a non-invasive treatment in which patients are assumed to self-regulate a physiological dysregulated vagal nerve. Although... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Heartrate variability biofeedback (HRVB) is a non-invasive treatment in which patients are assumed to self-regulate a physiological dysregulated vagal nerve. Although the therapeutic approach of HRVB is promising in various stress-related disorders, it has only been offered on a regular basis in a few mental health treatment settings.
AIM
To analyse the efficacy of HRV biofeedback as an additional psychophysiological treatment for depression and PTSD.
METHOD
Systematic review with search terms HRV, biofeedback, PTSD, depression, panic disorder and anxiety disorder.
RESULTS
Our search of the literature yielded 789 studies. After critical appraisal using the GRADE method, we selected 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 relevant studies. The RCTs with control groups 'treatment as usual' and muscle relaxation training revealed significant clinical efficacy and better results than control conditions after 4 to 8 weeks training.
CONCLUSION
Although this systematic review shows the popularity of HRV in literature, it does not indicate that HRVB really has been reviewed systematically. Significant outcomes of this limited number of randomised studies indicate there may be a clinical improvement when HRVB training is integrated into treatment of PTSD and depression, particularly when this integration procedure is combined with psychotherapy. More research needs to be done with larger groups and further efforts are needed to integrate HRVB into treatment of stress-related disorders in psychiatry. Future research also needs to focus on the psychophysiological mechanisms involved.
Topics: Biofeedback, Psychology; Depression; Heart Rate; Humans; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27075221
DOI: No ID Found -
Human Brain Mapping Sep 2016The inhibitory gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) system is involved in the etiology of most psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The inhibitory gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) system is involved in the etiology of most psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). It is therefore not surprising that proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1) H-MRS) is increasingly used to investigate in vivo brain GABA levels. However, integration of the evidence for altered in vivo GABA levels across psychiatric disorders is lacking. We therefore systematically searched the clinical (1) H-MRS literature and performed a meta-analysis. A total of 40 studies (N = 1,591) in seven different psychiatric disorders were included in the meta-analysis: MDD (N = 437), schizophrenia (N = 517), ASD (N = 150), bipolar disorder (N = 129), panic disorder (N = 81), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (N = 104), and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (N = 173). Brain GABA levels were lower in ASD (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.74, P = 0.001) and in depressed MDD patients (SMD = -0.52, P = 0.005), but not in remitted MDD patients (SMD = -0.24, P = 0.310) compared with controls. In schizophrenia this finding did not reach statistical significance (SMD = -0.23, P = 0.089). No significant differences in GABA levels were found in bipolar disorder, panic disorder, PTSD, and ADHD compared with controls. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provided evidence for lower brain GABA levels in ASD and in depressed (but not remitted) MDD patients compared with healthy controls. Findings in schizophrenia were more equivocal. Even though future (1) H-MRS studies could greatly benefit from a longitudinal design and consensus on the preferred analytical approach, it is apparent that (1) H-MRS studies have great potential in advancing our understanding of the role of the GABA system in the pathogenesis of psychiatric disorders. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3337-3352, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Topics: Brain; Humans; Mental Disorders; Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 27145016
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.23244 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021To synthesize the prevalence of mental and substance use disorders in countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) of the World Health Organization. The...
To synthesize the prevalence of mental and substance use disorders in countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) of the World Health Organization. The literature search was conducted across several databases in two phases. First, we searched for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published before 2014, reporting prevalence estimates for mental disorders in the EMR. Then, we identified new primary cross-sectional or longitudinal studies published between 2014 and 2020. Studies were included if they had a sample size of ≥ 450 and were conducted among the general adult population. Current, period and lifetime prevalence estimates for each disorder were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were conducted. Prevalence estimates were extracted from 54 cross-sectional studies across 15 countries within the EMR. Pooled analyses of current, period and lifetime prevalence showed the highest prevalence for depression (14.8%, 95% confidence interval, CI: 10.7-20.1%), followed by generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) (10.4%, 95% CI: 7.1-14.7%), post-traumatic stress disorder (7.2%, 95% CI: 2.9-16.6%), substance use (4.0%, 95% CI: 3.1-5.2%), obsessive compulsive disorder (2.8%, 95% CI: 1.6-4.9%), phobic disorders (1.8%, 95% CI: 1.1-2.8%), panic disorders (1.1%, 95% CI: 0.6-2.2%), bipolar disorders (0.7%, 95% CI: 0.3-1.6%), and psychosis (0.5%, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9%). Populations exposed to adverse events had higher prevalence of mental disorders than the general population. Period and lifetime prevalence showed little difference across mental disorders. More pronounced differences in prevalence were seen for depression and GAD, specifically between current and lifetime prevalence (depression: current prevalence 20.5% (95% CI: 14.9-27.4%), vs. lifetime prevalence: 4.2% (95%CI: 1.8-9.6%); GAD: current prevalence 10.3% (95% CI: 6.1-17.0), vs. lifetime prevalence: 4.5% (95% CI: 2.4-8.3%). Differences between current and lifetime prevalence of mental disorders may be due to the use of different screening instruments and thresholds being applied. The prevalence of mental and substance use disorders in the EMR is high. Despite substantial inter-survey heterogeneity, our estimates align with previous global and regional data on mental disorders. Our meta-review provides new evidence on the burden of mental health problems in the EMR. PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020187388.
PubMed: 34335323
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.665019