4.6 Article

Do Comorbid Anxiety Disorders Moderate the Effects of Psychotherapy for Bipolar Disorder? Results From STEP-BD

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 171, 期 2, 页码 178-186

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13020225

关键词

-

资金

  1. Boston University
  2. Brain Cells
  3. Catalan
  4. Massachusetts General Hospital Psychiatry Academy
  5. Systems Research and Applications Corporation
  6. NIMH [N01MH80001, MH-29618, MH-43931, MH-55101, 1K23MH074895-01A2]
  7. American Psychological Association Press
  8. Guilford Press
  9. Lundbeck
  10. Servier International
  11. Attias Family Foundation
  12. Brain and Behavior Research Foundation
  13. Danny Alberts Foundation
  14. Deutsch Foundation
  15. Kayne Foundation
  16. Knapp Foundation
  17. Autism Foundation
  18. Australia National Health and Medical Research Council
  19. Beyond Blue
  20. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  21. Cooperative Research Centre
  22. Eli Lilly
  23. Geelong Medical Research Foundation
  24. GlaxoSmithKline
  25. Mayne Pharma
  26. Medical Benefits Fund
  27. Meat and Livestock Board
  28. NIH
  29. Novartis
  30. Organon
  31. Rotary Health
  32. Servier
  33. Simons Cancer Council of Victoria
  34. Stanley Medical Research Foundation
  35. Woolworths
  36. Forest Pharmaceuticals
  37. Sanofi Synthelabo
  38. Sepracor
  39. Pfizer
  40. UCB Pharma
  41. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
  42. AstraZeneca
  43. Cephalon
  44. Janssen Pharmaceutica
  45. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  46. Cederroth
  47. Cyberonics
  48. Elan
  49. Lichtwer Pharma
  50. Mylin
  51. NARSAD
  52. Pamlab
  53. Shire
  54. Stanley Foundation
  55. Wyeth-Ayerst
  56. International OCD Foundation
  57. burette Syndrome Association
  58. Tufts University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: At least 50% of individuals with bipolar disorder have a lifetime anxiety disorder. Individuals with both bipolar disorder and a co-occurring anxiety disorder experience longer illness duration, greater illness severity, and poorer treatment response. The study explored whether comorbid lifetime anxiety in bipolar patients moderates psychotherapy treatment outcome. Method: In the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program randomized controlled trial of psychotherapy for bipolar depression, participants received up to 30 sessions of intensive psychotherapy (family-focused therapy, interpersonal and social rhythm therapy, or cognitive-behavioral therapy) or collaborative care, a three-session comparison treatment, plus pharmacotherapy. Using the number needed to treat, we computed effect sizes to analyze the relationship between lifetime anxiety disorders and rates of recovery across treatment groups after 1 year. Results: A total of 269 patients (113 women) with a comorbid lifetime anxiety. disorder (N=177) or without a comorbid lifetime anxiety disorder (N=92) were included in the analysis. Participants with a lifetime anxiety disorder were more likely to recover with psychotherapy than with collaborative care (66% compared with 49% recovered over 1 year; number needed to treat=5.88, small to medium effect). For patients without a lifetime anxiety disorder, there was no difference between rates of recovery in psychotherapy compared with collaborative care (64% compared with 62% recovered; number needed to treat=50, small effect). Participants with one lifetime anxiety disorder were likely to benefit from intensive psychotherapy compared with collaborative care (84% compared with 53% recovered; number needed to treat=3.22, medium to large effect), whereas patients with multiple anxiety disorders exhibited no difference in response to the two treatments (54% compared with 46% recovered; number needed to treat=12.5, small effect). Conclusions: Depressed patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid anxiety may be in particular need of additional psychotherapy for treating acute depression. These results need to be replicated in studies that stratify bipolar patients to treatments based on their anxiety comorbidity status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据