Attenuation of Anxiety-Potentiated Startle After Treatment With Escitalopram or Mindfulness Meditation in Anxiety Disorders

BACKGROUND

Biological markers for anxiety disorders may further understanding of disorder pathophysiology and suggest potential targeted treatments. The fear-potentiated startle (FPS) (a measure of startle to predictable threat) and anxiety-potentiated startle (APS) (startle to unpredictable threat) laboratory paradigm has been used to detect physiological differences in individuals with anxiety disorders compared with nonanxious control individuals, and in pharmacological challenge studies in healthy adults. However, little is known about how startle may change with treatment for anxiety disorders, and no data are available regarding alterations due to mindfulness meditation training.

METHODS

Ninety-three individuals with anxiety disorders and 66 healthy individuals completed 2 sessions of the neutral, predictable, and unpredictable threat task, which employs a startle probe and the threat of shock to assess moment-by-moment fear and anxiety. Between the two testing sessions, patients received randomized 8-week treatment with either escitalopram or mindfulness-based stress reduction.

RESULTS

APS, but not FPS, was higher in participants with anxiety disorders compared with healthy control individuals at baseline. Further, there was a significantly greater decrease in APS for both treatment groups compared with the control group, with the patient groups showing reductions bringing them into the range of control individuals at the end of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Both anxiety treatments (escitalopram and mindfulness-based stress reduction) reduced startle potentiation during unpredictable (APS) but not predictable (FPS) threat. These findings further validate APS as a biological correlate of pathological anxiety and provide physiological evidence for the impact of mindfulness-based stress reduction on anxiety disorders, suggesting that there may be comparable effects of the two treatments on anxiety neurocircuitry.

The novel vasopressin receptor (V1aR) antagonist SRX246 reduces anxiety in an experimental model in humans: a randomized proof-of-concept study

RATIONALE

Arginine vasopressin (AVP) is a neuropeptide that modulates both physiological and emotional responses to threat. Until recently, drugs that target vasopressin receptors (V1a) in the human central nervous system were unavailable. The development of a novel V1a receptor antagonist, SRX246, permits the experimental validation of vasopressin's role in the regulation of anxiety and fear in humans.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we examined the effects of SRX246 in a proof-of-concept translational paradigm of fear (phasic response to imminent threat) and anxiety (prolonged response to potential threat).

METHODS

Healthy volunteers received both SRX246 and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, counter-balanced order separated by a 5-7-day wash-out period. Threat consisted of unpleasant electric shocks. The "NPU" threat test probed startle reactivity during predictable threat (i.e., fear-potentiated startle) and unpredictable threat (i.e., anxiety-potentiated startle).

RESULTS

As predicted, SRX246 decreased anxiety-potentiated startle independent of fear-potentiated startle.

CONCLUSIONS

As anxiety-potentiated startle is elevated in anxiety and trauma-associated disorders and decreased by traditional anxiolytics such as SSRIs and benzodiazepines, the V1a receptor is a promising novel treatment target.

How many blinks are necessary for a reliable startle response? A test using the NPU-threat task

Emotion-modulated startle is a frequently used method in affective science. Although there is a growing literature on the reliability of this measure, it is presently unclear how many startle responses are necessary to obtain a reliable signal. The present study therefore evaluated the reliability of startle responding as a function of number of startle responses (NoS) during a widely used threat-of-shock paradigm, the NPU-threat task, in a clinical (N=205) and non-clinical (N=92) sample. In the clinical sample, internal consistency was also examined independently for healthy controls vs. those with panic disorder and/or major depression and retest reliability was assessed as a function of NoS. Although results varied somewhat by diagnosis and for retest reliability, the overall pattern of results suggested that six startle responses per condition were necessary to obtain acceptable reliability in clinical and non-clinical samples during this threat-of-shock paradigm in the present study.