A clinical staging approach to improving diagnostics in anxiety disorders: Is it the way to go?

Wicher A Bokma, N. Batelaan, A. Hoogendoorn, B. Penninx, A. V. van Balkom
{"title":"A clinical staging approach to improving diagnostics in anxiety disorders: Is it the way to go?","authors":"Wicher A Bokma, N. Batelaan, A. Hoogendoorn, B. Penninx, A. V. van Balkom","doi":"10.1177/0004867419887804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Clinical staging is a paradigm in which stages of disease progression are identified; these, in turn, have prognostic value. A staging model that enables the prediction of long-term course in anxiety disorders is currently unavailable but much needed as course trajectories are highly heterogenic. This study therefore tailored a heuristic staging model to anxiety disorders and assessed its validity. Methods: A clinical staging model was tailored to anxiety disorders, distinguishing nine stages of disease progression varying from subclinical stages (0, 1A, 1B) to clinical stages (2A–4B). At-risk subjects and subjects with anxiety disorders (n = 2352) from the longitudinal Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety were assigned to these nine stages. The model’s validity was assessed by comparing baseline (construct validity) and 2-year, 4-year and 6-year follow-up (predictive validity) differences in anxiety severity measures across stages. Differences in depression severity and disability were assessed as secondary outcome measures. Results: Results showed that the anxiety disorder staging model has construct and predictive validity. At baseline, differences in anxiety severity, social avoidance behaviors, agoraphobic avoidance behaviors, worrying, depressive symptoms and levels of disability existed across all stages (all p-values < 0.001). Over time, these differences between stages remained present until the 6-year follow-up. Differences across stages followed a linear trend in all analyses: higher stages were characterized by the worst outcomes. Regarding the stages, subjects with psychiatric comorbidity (stages 2B, 3B, 4B) showed a deteriorated course compared with those without comorbidity (stages 2A, 3A, 4A). Conclusion: A clinical staging tool would be useful in clinical practice to predict disease course in anxiety disorders.","PeriodicalId":8576,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867419887804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Background: Clinical staging is a paradigm in which stages of disease progression are identified; these, in turn, have prognostic value. A staging model that enables the prediction of long-term course in anxiety disorders is currently unavailable but much needed as course trajectories are highly heterogenic. This study therefore tailored a heuristic staging model to anxiety disorders and assessed its validity. Methods: A clinical staging model was tailored to anxiety disorders, distinguishing nine stages of disease progression varying from subclinical stages (0, 1A, 1B) to clinical stages (2A–4B). At-risk subjects and subjects with anxiety disorders (n = 2352) from the longitudinal Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety were assigned to these nine stages. The model’s validity was assessed by comparing baseline (construct validity) and 2-year, 4-year and 6-year follow-up (predictive validity) differences in anxiety severity measures across stages. Differences in depression severity and disability were assessed as secondary outcome measures. Results: Results showed that the anxiety disorder staging model has construct and predictive validity. At baseline, differences in anxiety severity, social avoidance behaviors, agoraphobic avoidance behaviors, worrying, depressive symptoms and levels of disability existed across all stages (all p-values < 0.001). Over time, these differences between stages remained present until the 6-year follow-up. Differences across stages followed a linear trend in all analyses: higher stages were characterized by the worst outcomes. Regarding the stages, subjects with psychiatric comorbidity (stages 2B, 3B, 4B) showed a deteriorated course compared with those without comorbidity (stages 2A, 3A, 4A). Conclusion: A clinical staging tool would be useful in clinical practice to predict disease course in anxiety disorders.
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
改善焦虑症诊断的临床分期方法:这是可行的方法吗?
背景:临床分期是确定疾病进展阶段的一种范式;这些数据反过来又具有预测价值。一种能够预测焦虑症长期病程的分期模型目前尚不可用,但由于病程轨迹是高度异质性的,因此非常需要。因此,本研究为焦虑症量身定制了启发式分期模型,并评估了其有效性。方法:根据焦虑障碍的临床分期模型,区分从亚临床阶段(0、1A、1B)到临床阶段(2A-4B)的9个疾病进展阶段。来自荷兰抑郁和焦虑纵向研究的高危受试者和焦虑症受试者(n = 2352)被分配到这九个阶段。通过比较各阶段焦虑严重程度测量的基线(结构效度)和2年、4年和6年随访(预测效度)差异来评估模型的效度。评估抑郁严重程度和残疾的差异作为次要结局指标。结果:焦虑障碍分期模型具有建构效度和预测效度。在基线时,所有阶段的焦虑严重程度、社交回避行为、广场恐惧回避行为、担忧、抑郁症状和残疾水平存在差异(p值均< 0.001)。随着时间的推移,这些阶段之间的差异一直存在,直到6年的随访。在所有分析中,不同阶段的差异遵循线性趋势:较高阶段的特征是最差的结果。在各阶段中,有精神疾病共病(2B、3B、4B期)的受试者比无精神疾病共病(2A、3A、4A期)的受试者病程恶化。结论:临床分期工具对焦虑障碍的病程预测具有一定的临床应用价值。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mortality in people living with dementia who self-harmed: An Australian data linkage study Exploring the use of electroconvulsive therapy in the anticoagulated population: A systematic review Evaluation of Monitoring Practices in Patients on Novel Antipsychotics Myoclonus in Psychiatry Pain Medicine: New Frontiers in Moving from Cell to Soul, and Back
×
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