Aripiprazole Augmentation in the Treatment of Military-Related PTSD with Major Depression: a retrospective chart review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In this chart review, we attempted to evaluate the benefits of adding aripiprazole in veterans with military-related PTSD and comorbid depression, who had been minimally or partially responsive to their existing medications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective chart review of patients who received an open-label, flexible-dose, 12- week course of adjunctive aripiprazole was conducted in 27 military veterans meeting DSM-IV criteria for PTSD and comorbid major depression. Concomitant psychiatric medications continued unchanged, except for other antipsychotics which were discontinued prior to initiating aripiprazole. The primary outcome variable was a change from baseline in the PTSD checklist-military version (PCL-M) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>PTSD severity (Total PCL scores) decreased from 56.11 at baseline to 46.85 at 12-weeks (p < 0.0001 from Wilcoxon signed rank test) and the depression severity decreased from 30.44 at baseline to 20.67 at 12-weeks (p < 0.0001 from Wilcoxon signed rank test). Thirty seven percent (10/27) were considered responders, as defined by a decrease in total PCL scores of at least 20 percent and 19% (5/27) were considered as responders as defined by a decrease in total BDI score of at least 50%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The addition of aripiprazole contributed to a reduction in both PTSD and depression symptomatology in a population that has traditionally demonstrated poor pharmacological response. Further investigations, including double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, are essential to confirm and further demonstrate the benefit of aripiprazole augmentation in the treatment of military related PTSD.</p

A comparison of low-dose risperidone to paroxetine in the treatment of panic attacks: a randomized, single-blind study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Because a large proportion of patients with panic attacks receiving approved pharmacotherapy do not respond or respond poorly to medication, it is important to identify additional therapeutic strategies for the management of panic symptoms. This article describes a randomized, rater-blind study comparing low-dose risperidone to standard-of-care paroxetine for the treatment of panic attacks.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifty six subjects with a history of panic attacks were randomized to receive either risperidone or paroxetine. The subjects were then followed for eight weeks. Outcome measures included the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (Ham-A), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D), the Sheehan Panic Anxiety Scale-Patient (SPAS-P), and the Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All subjects demonstrated a reduction in both the frequency and severity of panic attacks regardless of treatment received. Statistically significant improvements in rating scale scores for both groups were identified for the PDSS, the Ham-A, the Ham-D, and the CGI. There was no difference between treatment groups in the improvement in scores on the measures PDSS, Ham-A, Ham-D, and CGI. Post hoc tests suggest that subjects receiving risperidone may have a quicker clinical response than subjects receiving paroxetine.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We can identify no difference in the efficacy of paroxetine and low-dose risperidone in the treatment of panic attacks. Low-dose risperidone appears to be tolerated equally well as paroxetine. Low-dose risperidone may be an effective treatment for anxiety disorders in which panic attacks are a significant component.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT100457106</p

Continuity of care, readmission and service consumption of patients with schizophrenia and related disorders in Victoria and Groningen: A comparative case-register study

Objective: We compared service consumption, continuity of care and risk of readmission in a record linkage follow-up study of cohorts of patients with schizophrenia and related disorders in Victoria (Australia) and in Groningen (The Netherlands). These areas are interesting to compare because mental health care is in a different stage of deinstitutionaliza-tion. More beds are available in Groningen and more community resources are available in Victoria. Method: The cohorts were followed for 4 years, since discharge from in-patient services using record linkage data available in the psychiatric case-registers in both areas. Survival analysis was used to study continuity of care and risk of readmission. Results: Available indicators showed a higher level of continuity of care in Victoria. While the relative risk of readmission was the same in both areas and not affected by aftercare contact after discharge, the number of days spent in hospital was much higher in the Groningen register area. Conclusion: These findings provide further support for earlier reports that the risk of readmission is predominantly affected by attributes of mental illness. However, the duration of admissions, is strongly affected by service system variables, including the provision of continuity of care

Measuring observed mental state in acute psychiatric inpatients

Background: Relationships within acute psychiatric units between patient-level experiences and events and fluctuations in mental state have rarely been examined. Aim: Data from a multi-centre service evaluation (11 units, 5,546 admissions) were used to examine mental state patterns and associations with clinical characteristics, events and adverse incidents. Method: During the 12-month evaluation period, nursing staff completed shift-level ratings using a new rating scale, the observed mental state (OMS) scale, which assessed active psychopathology (emotional distress, disinhibition, psychosis, cognitive impairment) and withdrawal (45,885 sets of day/afternoon shift ratings). Results: The OMS scale performed satisfactorily and is worth considering elsewhere (e.g., active psychopathology: internal consistency, α = 0.72; short-term stability, r = 0.72; sensitivity to change, adjusted standardised difference, ASD = 0.71). Levels of active psychopathology were much higher on shifts in which reportable (ASD = 1.47) and less serious aggression occurred (ASD = 1.44), compared with other shifts in which pro re nata medications were also administered (ASD = 0.76), suggesting that medication usage often followed these events, and possibly that agitation and distress levels either rose rapidly or went initially unnoticed on these shifts. Although mental state improved steadily across the admission, one-fifth of the patients with schizophrenia received OMS psychosis ratings in the moderate to severe range during the days prior to discharge. Conclusions: Observed mental state ratings were strongly linked with diagnosis and reflected key events and incidents. Routine recording using the OMS scale may assist clinical decision-making and evaluation in acute psychiatric units