Search

Disorders such as Trichotillomania (TTM) and skin-picking disorder (SPD) are associated with reduced flexibility and increased internally focused attention. While the basal ganglia have been hypothesized to play a key role, the mechanisms underlying learning and flexible accommodation of new information is unclear. Using a Bayesian Learning Model, we evaluated the neural basis of learning and accommodation in individuals with TTM and/or SPD. Participants were 127 individuals with TTM and/or SPD (TTM/SPD) recruited from three sites (age 18-57, 84% female) and 26 healthy controls (HC). During fMRI, participants completed a shape-button associative learning and reversal fMRI task. Above-threshold clusters were identified where the Initial Learning-Reversals BOLD activation contrast differed significantly (p

ObjectiveUp to 60% of patients with bipolar disorder develop a substance use disorder during their lifetime. The purpose of this paper was to assess the impact of substance use disorders on depression recovery among bipolar patients randomly assigned to different psychotropic medications and psychosocial interventions. We hypothesized that patients with a comorbid substance use disorder would benefit less from psychotherapy regardless of treatment intensity/length compared to patients without a comorbid substance use disorder.MethodWe conducted post hoc analyses among bipolar disorder patients ( n = 270) with and without comorbid substance use disorders enrolled in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder randomized psychosocial intervention trial. All patients entered during or shortly after the onset of a bipolar depressive episode. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess whether current or past substance use disorders moderated the response of patients to intensive psychosocial intervention or brief psychoeducation with collaborative care, operationalized as full recovery from an episode of bipolar depression.ResultsCurrent comorbid substance use disorders significantly predicted likelihood of recovery (odds ratio = 2.25, p = 0.025) and time to recovery (odds ratio = 1.71, p = 0.006) from bipolar depression. We found that 74.5% of patients with a current substance use disorder, compared to 56.5% without a current substance use disorder, recovered from bipolar depression. Past substance use disorders did not predict likelihood of recovery or time to recovery. Current substance use disorders did not significantly moderate response to intensive psychotherapy versus collaborative care.ConclusionContrary to our hypotheses, bipolar disorder participants with a current comorbid substance use disorder were more likely to recover from psychosocial treatment for bipolar depression than patients without a current comorbid substance use disorder. If this finding is replicated, it has implications for the ordering of treatment for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and substance use disorders.

This study examined whether sleep disturbance predicted or moderated responses to psychotherapy in participants who participated in STEP-BD, a national, multisite study that examined the effectiveness of different treatment combinations for bipolar disorder. Participants received either a brief psychosocial intervention called collaborative care (CC; n = 130) or intensive psychotherapy (IP; n = 163), with study-based pharmacotherapy. Participants (N = 243) were defined as current (past week) short sleepers (

Although prevalence rates of substance use in adolescence have remained steady or declined in recent years, there is a concerning increase in overdose deaths in the last decade. Given the significant burden associated with substance use disorders, systematic screening and assessment are important to identify substance use risk and diagnose substance use disorders. Youth with mood disorders are at an increased risk of developing a substance use disorder. Understanding risk factors is critical to effective screening and assessment as well as early identification and intervention. In the present review, we discuss current research on risk factors of comorbid substance use disorders in youth with mood disorders and provide a brief review of commonly used screening and assessment tools for use with adolescents. Finally, we conclude with considerations for next steps following screening and assessment of comorbid substance use disorders in youth with mood disorders. [Psychiatr Ann. 2024;54(9):e248–e252.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundWe sought to address how predictors and moderators of psychotherapy for bipolar depression - identified individually in prior analyses - can inform the development of a metric for prospectively classifying treatment outcome in intensive psychotherapy (IP) versus collaborative care (CC) adjunctive to pharmacotherapy in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program (STEP-BD) study.MethodsWe conducted post-hoc analyses on 135 STEP-BD participants using cluster analysis to identify subsets of participants with similar clinical profiles and investigated this combined metric as a moderator and predictor of response to IP. We used agglomerative hierarchical cluster analyses and k-means clustering to determine the content of the clinical profiles. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate whether the resulting clusters predicted or moderated likelihood of recovery or time until recovery.ResultsThe cluster analysis yielded a two-cluster solution: 1) "less-recurrent/severe" and 2) "chronic/recurrent." Rates of recovery in IP were similar for less-recurrent/severe and chronic/recurrent participants. Less-recurrent/severe patients were more likely than chronic/recurrent patients to achieve recovery in CC (p=.040, OR=4.56). IP yielded a faster recovery for chronic/recurrent participants, whereas CC led to recovery sooner in the less-recurrent/severe cluster (p=.034, OR=2.62).LimitationsCluster analyses require list-wise deletion of cases with missing data so we were unable to conduct analyses on all STEP-BD participants.ConclusionsA well-powered, parametric approach can distinguish patients based on illness history and provide clinicians with symptom profiles of patients that confer differential prognosis in CC vs. IP.

ObjectiveAt 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.MethodIn 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsDepressed 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.

Objectives: To understand treatment practices for bipolar disorders (BD), this study leveraged the Global Bipolar Cohort collaborative network to investigate pharmacotherapeutic treatment patterns in multiple cohorts of well‐characterized individuals with BD in North America, Europe, and Australia. Methods: Data on pharmacotherapy, demographics, diagnostic subtypes, and comorbidities were provided from each participating cohort. Individual site and regional pooled proportional meta‐analyses with generalized linear mixed methods were conducted to identify prescription patterns. Results: This study included 10,351 individuals from North America (n = 3985), Europe (n = 3822), and Australia (n = 2544). Overall, participants were predominantly female (60%) with BD‐I (60%; vs. BD‐II = 33%). Cross‐sectionally, mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants (44%), second‐generation antipsychotics (42%), and antidepressants (38%) were the most prescribed medications. Lithium was prescribed in 29% of patients, primarily in the Australian (31%) and European (36%) cohorts. First‐generation antipsychotics were prescribed in 24% of the European versus 1% in the North American cohort. Antidepressant prescription rates were higher in BD‐II (47%) compared to BD‐I (35%). Major limitations were significant differences among cohorts based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, data source, and time/year of enrollment into cohort. Conclusions: Mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants, second‐generation antipsychotics, and antidepressants were the most prescribed medications suggesting prescription patterns that are not necessarily guideline concordant. Significant differences exist in the prescription practices across different geographic regions, especially the underutilization of lithium in the North American cohorts and the higher utilization of first‐generation antipsychotics in the European cohorts. There is a need to conduct future longitudinal studies to further explore these differences and their impact on outcomes, and to inform and implement evidence‐based guidelines to help improve treatment practices in BD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.: Anxiety can interfere with attention and working memory, which are components that affect learning. Statistical models have been designed to study learning, such as the Bayesian Learning Model, which takes into account prior possibilities and behaviours to determine how much of a new behaviour is determined by learning instead of chance. However, the neurobiological basis underlying how anxiety interferes with learning is not yet known. Accordingly, we aimed to use neuroimaging techniques and apply a Bayesian Learning Model to study learning in individuals with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Methods.: Participants were 25 controls and 14 individuals with GAD and comorbid disorders. During fMRI, participants completed a shape-button association learning and reversal task. Using a flexible factorial analysis in SPM, activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and hippocampus was compared between groups during first reversal. Beta values from the peak of these regions were extracted for all learning conditions and submitted to repeated measures analyses in SPSS. Results.: Individuals with GAD showed less activation in the basal ganglia and the hippocampus only in the first reversal compared with controls. This difference was not present in the initial learning and second reversal. Conclusion.: Given that the basal ganglia is associated with initial learning, and the hippocampus with transfer of knowledge from short- to long-term memory, our results suggest that GAD may engage these regions to a lesser extent during early accommodation or consolidation of learning, but have no longer term effects in brain activation patterns during subsequent learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]