A systematic review evaluating PTSD treatment effects on intermediate phenotypes of PTSD.

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1037/tra0001410
Alexandra N Palmisano, Sarah Meshberg-Cohen, Ismene L Petrakis, Mehmet Sofuoglu
{"title":"A systematic review evaluating PTSD treatment effects on intermediate phenotypes of PTSD.","authors":"Alexandra N Palmisano, Sarah Meshberg-Cohen, Ismene L Petrakis, Mehmet Sofuoglu","doi":"10.1037/tra0001410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although the efficacy of evidence-based treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been well established, high rates of treatment dropout and/or nonresponse or under-response to treatment suggest a need to explore novel treatment approaches. Most current research has focused on DSM-based categorical outcomes as primary indicators of treatment response, which may obscure the phenotypic heterogeneity of PTSD and limit the ability to map symptoms to underlying neurobiology. This systematic review aimed to identify intermediate phenotypes (IPs) of PTSD and evaluate IP sensitivity to PTSD treatments.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Five databases were searched for empirical studies published in English between January 1, 2010 and August 1, 2022 examining behavioral and pharmacological PTSD treatment effects on biobehavioral PTSD outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated behavioral treatment outcomes (<i>n</i> = 20), while only two studies evaluated pharmacological interventions. Five PTSD IPs were identified, including \"impairments in working memory,\" \"alterations in cognitive control,\" \"unstable threat processing,\" \"heightened fear or startle response,\" and \"disturbances in sleep and wakefulness.\" This review offers preliminary support to suggest the utility of IP measures in assessing treatment efficacy; however, risk of bias and methodological limitations constrain the validity and generalizability of the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The paucity of research combined with the heterogeneity of study methodologies and significant study limitations makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding IP sensitivity to treatment. However, the existing body of research incorporating this framework shows potential for the IP approach to improve the translation of treatment efficacy from clinical trials to clinical settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":"768-783"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001410","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Although the efficacy of evidence-based treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been well established, high rates of treatment dropout and/or nonresponse or under-response to treatment suggest a need to explore novel treatment approaches. Most current research has focused on DSM-based categorical outcomes as primary indicators of treatment response, which may obscure the phenotypic heterogeneity of PTSD and limit the ability to map symptoms to underlying neurobiology. This systematic review aimed to identify intermediate phenotypes (IPs) of PTSD and evaluate IP sensitivity to PTSD treatments.

Method: Five databases were searched for empirical studies published in English between January 1, 2010 and August 1, 2022 examining behavioral and pharmacological PTSD treatment effects on biobehavioral PTSD outcomes.

Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated behavioral treatment outcomes (n = 20), while only two studies evaluated pharmacological interventions. Five PTSD IPs were identified, including "impairments in working memory," "alterations in cognitive control," "unstable threat processing," "heightened fear or startle response," and "disturbances in sleep and wakefulness." This review offers preliminary support to suggest the utility of IP measures in assessing treatment efficacy; however, risk of bias and methodological limitations constrain the validity and generalizability of the results.

Conclusions: The paucity of research combined with the heterogeneity of study methodologies and significant study limitations makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding IP sensitivity to treatment. However, the existing body of research incorporating this framework shows potential for the IP approach to improve the translation of treatment efficacy from clinical trials to clinical settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统性回顾评估创伤后应激障碍治疗对创伤后应激障碍中间表型的影响。
目的:尽管以证据为基础的创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)治疗方法的疗效已得到充分证实,但高辍治率和/或对治疗无反应或反应不足表明有必要探索新的治疗方法。目前的大多数研究都将基于 DSM 的分类结果作为治疗反应的主要指标,这可能会掩盖创伤后应激障碍的表型异质性,并限制将症状映射到潜在神经生物学的能力。本系统综述旨在确定创伤后应激障碍的中间表型(IP),并评估IP对创伤后应激障碍治疗的敏感性:方法:在五个数据库中检索了2010年1月1日至2022年8月1日期间发表的英文实证研究,这些研究考察了行为和药物PTSD治疗对生物行为PTSD结果的影响:结果:22 项研究符合纳入标准。大多数研究对行为治疗结果进行了评估(n = 20),只有两项研究对药物干预进行了评估。研究确定了五种 PTSD IP,包括 "工作记忆受损"、"认知控制改变"、"威胁处理不稳定"、"恐惧或惊吓反应增强 "以及 "睡眠和觉醒紊乱"。这篇综述提供了初步支持,表明IP测量在评估治疗效果方面的实用性;然而,偏倚风险和方法上的局限性限制了结果的有效性和普遍性:研究数量少,加上研究方法的异质性和研究的重大局限性,很难就IP对治疗的敏感性得出有力的结论。然而,结合这一框架进行的现有研究表明,IP方法有可能改善治疗效果从临床试验到临床环境的转化。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
427
期刊介绍: Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy publishes empirical research on the psychological effects of trauma. The journal is intended to be a forum for an interdisciplinary discussion on trauma, blending science, theory, practice, and policy. The journal publishes empirical research on a wide range of trauma-related topics, including: -Psychological treatments and effects -Promotion of education about effects of and treatment for trauma -Assessment and diagnosis of trauma -Pathophysiology of trauma reactions -Health services (delivery of services to trauma populations) -Epidemiological studies and risk factor studies -Neuroimaging studies -Trauma and cultural competence
期刊最新文献
Exploring the role of technology in youth and adolescent deaths by suicide using data from the 2017-2019 National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). Military sexual trauma, childhood trauma, and combat trauma: Associations with longitudinal posttraumatic growth among U.S. Veterans. Prospective study of individual characteristics and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms following childbirth: Birth satisfaction as a moderator. Assessing similarities and differences in thematic content across online mental health communities dedicated to trauma-related mental health conditions. Consuming hurricane-related media: The protective role of perceived trust.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1