No Effects of D-Cycloserine Enhancement in Exposure With Response Prevention Therapy in Panic Disorder With Agoraphobia: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

Using pre-treatment de novo threat conditioning outcomes to predict treatment response to DCS augmentation of exposure-based CBT

BACKGROUND

Over a decade and a half of research has resulted in inconsistent evidence for the efficacy of d-cycloserine (DCS), a partial glutamatergic N-methyl-D-aspartate agonist, for augmenting exposure-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety- and fear-based disorders. These variable findings have motivated the search for moderators of DCS augmentation efficacy.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a previous randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the value of de novo threat conditioning outcomes-degree of threat acquisition, extinction, and extinction retention-for predicting treatment response to exposure-based CBT for social anxiety disorder, applied with and without DCS augmentation in a sample of 59 outpatients.

RESULTS

We found that average differential skin conductance response (SCR) during extinction and extinction retention significantly moderated the prediction of clinical response to DCS: participants with poorer extinction and extinction retention showed relatively improved treatment response with DCS. No such effects were found for expectancy ratings, consistent with accounts of DCS selectively aiding lower-order but not higher-order extinction learning.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide support for extinction and extinction retention outcomes from threat conditioning as potential pre-treatment biomarkers for DCS augmentation benefits. Independent of DCS augmentation, the current study did not support threat conditioning outcomes as useful for predicting response to exposure-based CBT.

A transdiagnostic meta-analysis of acute augmentations to psychological therapy

At least half of all patients with mental health disorders do not respond adequately to psychological therapy. Acutely enhancing particular biological or psychological processes during psychological therapy may improve treatment outcomes. However, previous studies are confined to specific augmentation approaches, typically assessed within single diagnostic categories. Our objective was to assess to what degree acute augmentations of psychological therapy reduce psychiatric symptoms and estimate effect sizes of augmentation types (for example, brain stimulation or psychedelics). We searched Medline, PsycINFO and Embase for controlled studies published between database inception and 25 May 2022. We conducted a preregistered random-effects meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42021236403). We identified 108 studies (N = 5,889). Acute augmentation significantly reduced the severity of mental health problems (Hedges' g = -0.27, 95% CI: [-0.36, -0.18]; P < 0.0001), particularly for the transdiagnostic dimensions 'Fear' and 'Distress'. This result survived a trim-and-fill analysis to account for publication bias. Subgroup analyses revealed that pharmacological, psychological and somatic augmentations were effective, but to varying degrees. Acute augmentation approaches are a promising route to improve outcomes from psychological therapy.

Augmentation of Psychotherapy with Neurobiological Methods: Current State and Future Directions

BACKGROUND

Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy are first-line treatments for mental disorders. Despite recent improvements, only approximately 50% of the patients reach sustained remission, indicating a need for novel developments. The main concept put forward in this systematic review and hypothesis article is the targeted co-administration of defined neurobiological interventions and specific psychotherapeutic techniques.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of augmented psychotherapy to psychotherapy alone.

RESULTS

Thirty-five trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The majority (29 trials) used augmentation strategies such as D-cycloserine, yohimbine, or sleep to enhance the effects of exposure therapy for anxiety disorders. Fewer studies investigated noninvasive brain stimulation with the aim of improving cognitive control, psychedelic compounds with the aim of enhancing existentially oriented psychotherapy, and oxytocin to improve social communication during psychotherapy. Results demonstrate small augmentation effects for the enhancement of exposure therapy - however, some of the studies found negative results. Other methods are less thoroughly researched, and results are mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

This approach provides an open matrix for further research and has the potential to systematically guide future studies.

Pharmacotherapy of Anxiety Disorders: Current and Emerging Treatment Options

(Appeared originally in Frontiers in Psychiatry 2020 Dec 23; 11:595584)

Dose Timing of D-Cycloserine to Augment Exposure Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Findings suggest that the efficacy of D-cycloserine (DCS) for enhancing exposure therapy may be strongest when administered after sessions marked by low fear at the conclusion of exposure practice. These findings have prompted investigation of DCS dosing tailored to results of exposure sessions.

OBJECTIVE

To compare tailored postsession DCS administration with presession DCS administration, postsession DCS administration, and placebo augmentation of exposure therapy for social anxiety disorder.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This double-blind randomized clinical trial involved adults with social anxiety disorder enrolled at 3 US university centers. Symptom severity was assessed at baseline, weekly during treatment, and at 1-week and 3-month follow-up. Data analysis was performed from September 2019 to March 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants completed a 5-session treatment and received pills commensurate with their condition assignment at sessions 2 through 5, which emphasized exposure practice.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Symptom severity was evaluated by the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale and Social Phobic Disorders-Severity Form as administered by independent evaluators.

RESULTS

A total of 152 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 29.24 [10.16] years; 84 men [55.26%]). Compared with placebo, presession and postsession conditions showed greater symptom improvement (b = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.13; P < .001; d = 1.07; and b = -0.20; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.07; P = .002; d = 0.85) and lower symptom severity (b = -0.51; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.21; P < .001; d = 0.76; and b = -0.49; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.18; P = .002; d = 0.72) at 3-month follow-up. No differences were found between presession and postsession conditions. The tailored condition showed no advantage over placebo. Compared with the tailored condition, presession and postsession conditions evidenced greater decreases (b = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.10; P < .001; d = 0.94; and b = -0.17, 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.04; P = .008; d = 0.72) and lower symptom severity (b = -0.44, 95% CI, -0.73 to -0.14; P = .004; d = 0.64; and b = -0.41, 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.11; P = .008; d = 0.61) at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Administration of DCS enhanced exposure therapy for social anxiety disorder when given before or after the exposure session. However, the study failed to achieve the aim to develop a tailored clinical application.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02066792.

Pharmacotherapy of Anxiety Disorders: Current and Emerging Treatment Options

Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders and a leading cause of disability. While there continues to be expansive research in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and schizophrenia, there is a relative dearth of novel medications under investigation for anxiety disorders. This review's first aim is to summarize current pharmacological treatments (both approved and off-label) for panic disorder (PD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), and specific phobias (SP), including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), azapirones (e.g., buspirone), mixed antidepressants (e.g., mirtazapine), antipsychotics, antihistamines (e.g., hydroxyzine), alpha- and beta-adrenergic medications (e.g., propranolol, clonidine), and GABAergic medications (benzodiazepines, pregabalin, and gabapentin). Posttraumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder are excluded from this review. Second, we will review novel pharmacotherapeutic agents under investigation for the treatment of anxiety disorders in adults. The pathways and neurotransmitters reviewed include serotonergic agents, glutamate modulators, GABAergic medications, neuropeptides, neurosteroids, alpha- and beta-adrenergic agents, cannabinoids, and natural remedies. The outcome of the review reveals a lack of randomized double-blind placebo- controlled trials for anxiety disorders and few studies comparing novel treatments to existing anxiolytic agents. Although there are some recent randomized controlled trials for novel agents including neuropeptides, glutamatergic agents (such as ketamine and d-cycloserine), and cannabinoids (including cannabidiol) primarily in GAD or SAD, these trials have largely been negative, with only some promise for kava and PH94B (an inhaled neurosteroid). Overall, the progression of current and future psychopharmacology research in anxiety disorders suggests that there needs to be further expansion in research of these novel pathways and larger-scale studies of promising agents with positive results from smaller trials.

Changes in Dosing and Dose Timing of D-Cycloserine Explain Its Apparent Declining Efficacy for Augmenting Exposure Therapy for Anxiety-related Disorders: An Individual Participant-data Meta-analysis

The apparent efficacy of d-cycloserine (DCS) for enhancing exposure treatment for anxiety disorders appears to have declined over the past 14 years. We examined whether variations in how DCS has been administered can account for this "declining effect". We also investigated the association between DCS administration characteristics and treatment outcome to find optimal dosing parameters. We conducted a secondary analysis of individual participant data obtained from 1047 participants in 21 studies testing the efficacy of DCS-augmented exposure treatments. Different outcome measures in different studies were harmonized to a 0-100 scale. Intent-to-treat analyses showed that, in participants randomized to DCS augmentation (n = 523), fewer DCS doses, later timing of DCS dose, and lower baseline severity appear to account for this decline effect. More DCS doses were related to better outcomes, but this advantage leveled-off at nine doses. Administering DCS more than 60 minutes before exposures was also related to better outcomes. These predictors were not significant in the placebo arm (n = 521). Results suggested that optimal DCS administration could increase pre-to-follow-up DCS effect size by 50%. In conclusion, the apparent declining effectiveness of DCS over time may be accounted for by how it has been administered. Optimal DCS administration may substantially improve outcomes. Registration: The analysis plan for this manuscript was registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c39p8/).

Benzodiazepines versus placebo for panic disorder in adults

BACKGROUND

Panic disorder is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Panic disorder is a common disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 1% to 5% in the general population and a 7% to 10% prevalence in primary care settings. Its aetiology is not fully understood and is probably heterogeneous.Panic disorder is treated with psychological and pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Although benzodiazepines are frequently used in the treatment of panic disorder, guidelines recommend antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as first-line treatment for panic disorder, particularly due to their lower incidence of dependence and withdrawal reaction when compared to benzodiazepines. Despite these recommendations, benzodiazepines are widely used in the treatment of panic disorder, probably because of their rapid onset of action.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of benzodiazepines versus placebo in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), and PsycINFO (1967-) up to 29 May 2018. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All double-blind (blinding of patients and personnel) controlled trials randomising adults with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia to benzodiazepine or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardised form. Data were then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies in the review with a total of 4233 participants, of which 2124 were randomised to benzodiazepines and 1475 to placebo. The remaining 634 participants were randomised to other active treatments in three-arm trials. We assessed the overall methodological quality of the included studies as poor. We rated all studies as at unclear risk of bias in at least three domains. In addition, we judged 20 of the 24 included studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one domain.Two primary outcomes of efficacy and acceptability showed a possible advantage of benzodiazepines over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for a response to treatment was 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 1.96) in favour of benzodiazepines, which corresponds to an estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7). The dropout rate was lower among participants treated with benzodiazepines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64); the estimated NNTB was 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We rated the quality of the evidence as low for both primary outcomes. The possible advantage of benzodiazepine was also seen for remission (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.88) and the endpoint data for social functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.42), both with low-quality evidence. We assessed the evidence for the other secondary outcomes as of very low quality. With the exception of the analyses of the change score data for depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.04) and social functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.24), all secondary outcome analyses showed an effect in favour of benzodiazepines compared to placebo. However, the number of dropouts due to adverse effects was higher with benzodiazepines than with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.15; low-quality evidence). Furthermore, our analyses of adverse events showed that a higher proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with benzodiazepines (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence shows a possible superiority of benzodiazepine over placebo in the short-term treatment of panic disorders. The validity of the included studies is questionable due to possible unmasking of allocated treatments, high dropout rates, and probable publication bias. Moreover, the included studies were only short-term studies and did not examine the long-term efficacy nor the risks of dependency and withdrawal symptoms. Due to these limitations, our results regarding the efficacy of benzodiazepines versus placebo provide only limited guidance for clinical practice. Furthermore, the clinician's choice is not between benzodiazepines and placebo, but between benzodiazepines and other agents, notably SSRIs, both in terms of efficacy and adverse effects. The choice of treatment should therefore be guided by the patient's preference and should balance benefits and harms from treatment in a long-term perspective.

Learn to forget: Does post-exposure administration of d-cycloserine enhance fear extinction in agoraphobia?

The use of d-cycloserine (DCS) to augment exposure based therapy for anxiety disorders has shown mixed, although overall positive effects. Aim of the present study was to examine post-exposure administration of DCS in patients with agoraphobia with or without panic disorder. 73 patients with agoraphobia (with or without panic disorder) were treated with 12 sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) including 3 exposures. Following successful exposure patients were given double blind either placebo or 50 mg of DCS. Primary outcome criterion was change in the Panic and Agoraphobia Scale (PAS) between CBT session t1, t4 (+∼2 months), t10 (+∼3 months) und t11 (+∼4 months). During the course of CBT the patients' symptomatology decreased significantly as measured by primary and secondary outcome criteria, however, without an additional benefit for DCS treated patients. Exploratory sub-group analyses for severely ill patients and patients with high anxiety and strong habituation during exposure showed that DCS administration was associated with increased improvement during the 1-month follow-up period (t10 - t11) with medium to large effect sizes (range in effect size η²_p from .06 to .25). Our study results are consistent with recent research on DCS, indicating a beneficial augmentative effect for sub-groups of anxiety patients. The lack of an overall DCS effect for the whole patient sample might be explained by a dual mechanism in fear conditioning and extinction with different cognitive processes being involved during exposure depending on the degree of anxiety experienced by the patient.

Are there advances in pharmacotherapy for panic disorder? A systematic review of the past five years

INTRODUCTION

Several effective medications are available for treating panic disorder (PD). However, outcomes are unsatisfactory in a number of patients, suggesting the usefulness of expanding the array of antipanic drugs and improving the quality of response to current recommended treatments.

AREAS COVERED

The authors have performed an updated systematic review of pharmacological studies (phase III onwards) to examine whether advances have been made in the last five years. Only four studies were included. D-cycloserine no longer seemed promising as a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) enhancer. Some preliminary findings concerning the optimization of recommended medications deserved consideration, including: the possibility that SSRIs are more effective than CBT alone in treating panic attacks, combined therapy is preferable when agoraphobia is present, and clonazepam is more potent than paroxetine in decreasing panic relapse.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the lack of novel treatments, expanding a personalized approach to the existing medications seems to be the most feasible strategy to improve pharmacotherapy outcomes regarding PD. Recent technological progress, including wearable devices collecting real-time data, 'big data' platforms, and application of machine learning techniques might help make outcome prediction more reliable. Further research on previously promising novel treatments is also recommended.