This paper is based upon a panel discussion What I Have Changed My Mind About and Why held on 5 November in New Orleans, Louisiana (USA), as part of the ISTSS 2015 annual meeting Back to Basics: Integrating Clinical and Scientific Knowledge to Advance the Field of Trauma. The panel was chaired by Professor Dr. Rachel Yehuda of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs, and included five clinician-scholars who exchanged thoughts about what they have changed their minds about over the years: Dr. David Spiegel, Dr. Steven Southwick, Dr. Lori Davis, Dr. Thomas Neylan, and Dr. John Krystal. This paper provides a summary of the salient points made by each expert and the questions and discussion that ensured. Major issues raised included the increasingly clear limitations to the fear-based model that has advanced the field. While treatments for PTSD have improved, there are some aspects of trauma exposure that cannot be entirely repaired. Research providing an evidence base to treatment has led to overly specific treatment guidelines that may obscure more general principles of effective treatment. Treatment might be viewed as a way to increase the plasticity of the brain in the context of processing social cues. A variety of novel and integrative therapies include comprehensive holistic care, exercise, returning to competitive work, logotherapy, mindfulness, enhancing well-being and resilience, and medications with novel mechanisms, such as ketamine.

OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has significant negative effects on occupational, interpersonal, and social functioning. Supported employment is highly effective in helping people with a diagnosis of PTSD obtain and maintain competitive employment. However, less is known about the impact of supported employment on functioning in work or school, social, and interpersonal areas as specifically related to the symptoms of PTSD. METHOD: The Veterans Individual Placement and Support Toward Advancing Recovery study was a prospective, multisite, randomized, controlled trial that compared Individual Placement and Support (IPS) supported employment with a stepwise vocational rehabilitation involving transitional work (TW) assignments with unemployed veterans with PTSD diagnoses (n = 541) at 12 Veterans Administration (VA) medical centers. This analysis focuses on the PTSD-related functional outcomes over the 18-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Compared with those randomized to TW, the PTSD Related Functioning Inventory (PRFI) total score significantly improved for participants randomized to IPS (LSMeans difference = -3.92, 95% CI [-7.49, -.36]; p = .03) over 18 months. When the Work/School subscale of the PRFI was removed from the analysis, the IPS group continued to show significant improvements compared with the TW group on the PRFI relationship and lifestyle domains (LSMeans difference = -2.37, 95% CI [-4.74, .00]; p = .05), suggesting a positive impact of IPS beyond work/school functioning. CONCLUSION: Compared with the usual-care VA vocational services for veterans with PTSD, IPS supported employment is associated with greater improvement in overall PTSD-related functioning, including occupational, interpersonal, and lifestyle domains. In addition to superior employment outcomes, IPS has a positive impact on occupational-psychosocial functioning outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective

In this secondary analysis of data from the Veterans Affairs Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Improving Depression Outcomes (VAST-D) study, the authors sought to determine the effectiveness of early improvement (or lack thereof) for predicting remission from depression with antidepressant therapy.

Methods

This study used data from the VAST-D study, a multisite, randomized, single-blind trial with parallel assignment to one of three medication interventions for 1,522 veterans whose major depressive disorder was unresponsive to at least one course of antidepressant treatment meeting minimal standards for dosage and duration. The authors calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of early improvement on remission, response, or greater than minimal improvement from depression for various degrees of improvement (10%-50%) on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated (QIDS-C) at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks.

Results

The end of week 2 of treatment was identified as the best time to evaluate early improvement. The presence of a ≥20% drop from the baseline QIDS-C score by the end of week 2 resulted in a PPV for remission of 38% and an NPV of 93% by week 12. Extending the observational window to week 6 minimally improved NPV (97%). This association did not differ across treatment groups.

Conclusions

A lack of early improvement at the end of week 2 of antidepressant therapy can be used to inform clinical decisions on the likelihood of nonremission of depression during the subsequent 10 weeks, even when dosage optimization is incomplete.

BACKGROUND: Homeless patients face unique challenges in obtaining primary care responsive to their needs and context. Patient experience questionnaires could permit assessment of patient-centered medical homes for this population, but standard instruments may not reflect homeless patients priorities and concerns. OBJECTIVES: This report describes (a) the content and psychometric properties of a new primary care questionnaire for homeless patients; and (b) the methods utilized in its development. METHODS: Starting with quality-related constructs from the Institute of Medicine, we identified relevant themes by interviewing homeless patients and experts in their care. A multidisciplinary team drafted a preliminary set of 78 items. This was administered to homeless-experienced clients (n=563) across 3 VA facilities and 1 non-VA Health Care for the Homeless Program. Using Item Response Theory, we examined Test Information Function (TIF) curves to eliminate less informative items and devise plausibly distinct subscales. RESULTS: The resulting 33-item instrument (Primary Care Quality-Homeless) has 4 subscales: Patient-Clinician Relationship (15 items), Cooperation among Clinicians (3 items), Access/Coordination (11 items), and Homeless-specific Needs (4 items). Evidence for divergent and convergent validity is provided. TIF graphs showed adequate informational value to permit inferences about groups for 3 subscales (Relationship, Cooperation, and Access/Coordination). The 3-item Cooperation subscale had lower informational value (TIF<5) but had good internal consistency (α=0.75) and patients frequently reported problems in this aspect of care. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic application of qualitative and quantitative methods supported the development of a brief patient-reported questionnaire focused on the primary care of homeless patients and offers guidance for future population-specific instrument development.

To determine whether concurrent posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) should affect whether to augment or switch medications when major depressive disorder (MDD) has not responded to a prior antidepressant trial. Patients at 35 Veterans Health Administration medical centers from December 2012 to May 2015 with nonpsychotic MDD (N = 1,522) and a suboptimal response to adequate antidepressant treatment were randomly assigned to 3 "next step" treatments: switching to bupropion, augmenting the current antidepressant with bupropion, and augmenting with the antipsychotic aripiprazole. Blinded ratings with the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated (QIDS-C₁₆) determined remission and response by 12 weeks and relapse after remission. Survival analyses compared treatment effects in patients with concurrent PTSD diagnosed with the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (n = 717, 47.1%) and those without PTSD (n = 805, 52.9%). Patients diagnosed with PTSD showed more severe depressive symptoms at baseline and were less likely to achieve either remission or response by 12 weeks. Augmentation with aripiprazole was associated with greater likelihood of achieving response (68.4%) than switching to bupropion (57.7%) in patients with PTSD (relative risk [RR] = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.59) as well as in patients without PTSD (RR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.97) (78.9% response with aripiprazole augmentation vs 66.9% with switching to bupropion). Treatment comparisons with the group receiving augmentation with bupropion were not significant. There was no significant interaction between treatment group and PTSD on remission (P = .70), response (P = .98), or relapse (P = .15). Although PTSD was associated with poorer overall outcomes, the presence of concurrent PTSD among Veterans in this trial did not affect the comparative effectiveness of medications on response, remission, or relapse after initial remission. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01421342.

Objectives

We compared homeless patients' experiences of care in health care organizations that differed in their degree of primary care design service tailoring.

Methods

We surveyed homeless-experienced patients (either recently or currently homeless) at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) mainstream primary care settings in Pennsylvania and Alabama, a homeless-tailored VA clinic in California, and a highly tailored non-VA Health Care for the Homeless Program in Massachusetts (January 2011-March 2012). We developed a survey, the "Primary Care Quality-Homeless Survey," to reflect the concerns and aspirations of homeless patients.

Results

Mean scores at the tailored non-VA site were superior to those from the 3 mainstream VA sites (P < .001). Adjusting for patient characteristics, these differences remained significant for subscales assessing the patient-clinician relationship (P < .001) and perceptions of cooperation among providers (P = .004). There were 1.5- to 3-fold increased odds of an unfavorable experience in the domains of the patient-clinician relationship, cooperation, and access or coordination for the mainstream VA sites compared with the tailored non-VA site; the tailored VA site attained intermediate results.

Conclusions

Tailored primary care service design was associated with a superior service experience for patients who experienced homelessness.

Background

Homeless patients face unique challenges in obtaining primary care responsive to their needs and context. Patient experience questionnaires could permit assessment of patient-centered medical homes for this population, but standard instruments may not reflect homeless patients' priorities and concerns.

Objectives

This report describes (a) the content and psychometric properties of a new primary care questionnaire for homeless patients; and (b) the methods utilized in its development.

Methods

Starting with quality-related constructs from the Institute of Medicine, we identified relevant themes by interviewing homeless patients and experts in their care. A multidisciplinary team drafted a preliminary set of 78 items. This was administered to homeless-experienced clients (n=563) across 3 VA facilities and 1 non-VA Health Care for the Homeless Program. Using Item Response Theory, we examined Test Information Function (TIF) curves to eliminate less informative items and devise plausibly distinct subscales.

Results

The resulting 33-item instrument (Primary Care Quality-Homeless) has 4 subscales: Patient-Clinician Relationship (15 items), Cooperation among Clinicians (3 items), Access/Coordination (11 items), and Homeless-specific Needs (4 items). Evidence for divergent and convergent validity is provided. TIF graphs showed adequate informational value to permit inferences about groups for 3 subscales (Relationship, Cooperation, and Access/Coordination). The 3-item Cooperation subscale had lower informational value (TIF<5) but had good internal consistency (α=0.75) and patients frequently reported problems in this aspect of care.

Conclusions

Systematic application of qualitative and quantitative methods supported the development of a brief patient-reported questionnaire focused on the primary care of homeless patients and offers guidance for future population-specific instrument development.

Importance

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and serious mental health problem. Although there are effective psychotherapies for PTSD, there is little information about their comparative effectiveness.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of prolonged exposure (PE) vs cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for treating PTSD in veterans.

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized clinical trial assessed the comparative effectiveness of PE vs CPT among veterans with military-related PTSD recruited from outpatient mental health clinics at 17 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the US from October 31, 2014, to February 1, 2018, with follow-up through February 1, 2019. The primary outcome was assessed using centralized masking. Tested hypotheses were prespecified before trial initiation. Data were analyzed from October 5, 2020, to May 5, 2021.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 individual cognitive-behavioral therapies, PE or CPT, delivered according to a flexible protocol of 10 to 14 sessions.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was change in PTSD symptom severity on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) from before treatment to the mean after treatment across posttreatment and 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Secondary outcomes included other symptoms, functioning, and quality of life.

Results

Analyses were based on all 916 randomized participants (730 [79.7%] men and 186 [20.3%] women; mean [range] age 45.2 [21-80] years), with 455 participants randomized to PE (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 39.9 [95% CI, 39.1-40.7] points) and 461 participants randomized to CPT (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 40.3 [95% CI, 39.5-41.1] points). PTSD severity on the CAPS-5 improved substantially in both PE (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.08]) and CPT (SMD, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.61-0.80]) groups from before to after treatment. Mean improvement was greater in PE than CPT (least square mean, 2.42 [95% CI, 0.53-4.31]; P = .01), but the difference was not clinically significant (SMD, 0.17). Results for self-reported PTSD symptoms were comparable with CAPS-5 findings. The PE group had higher odds of response (odds ratio [OR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.00-1.65]; P < .001), loss of diagnosis (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.12-1.74]; P < .001), and remission (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.24-2.00]; P < .001) compared with the CPT group. Groups did not differ on other outcomes. Treatment dropout was higher in PE (254 participants [55.8%]) than in CPT (215 participants [46.6%]; P < .01). Three participants in the PE group and 1 participant in the CPT group were withdrawn from treatment, and 3 participants in each treatment dropped out owing to serious adverse events.

Conclusions and relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that although PE was statistically more effective than CPT, the difference was not clinically significant, and improvements in PTSD were meaningful in both treatment groups. These findings highlight the importance of shared decision-making to help patients understand the evidence and select their preferred treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01928732.

Importance

Less than one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) achieve remission with their first antidepressant.

Objective

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of 3 common alternate treatments for MDD.

Design, setting, and participants

From December 2012 to May 2015, 1522 patients at 35 US Veterans Health Administration medical centers who were diagnosed with nonpsychotic MDD, unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration, participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 treatments and evaluated for up to 36 weeks.

Interventions

Switch to a different antidepressant, bupropion (switch group, n = 511); augment current treatment with bupropion (augment-bupropion group, n = 506); or augment with an atypical antipsychotic, aripiprazole (augment-aripiprazole group, n = 505) for 12 weeks (acute treatment phase) and up to 36 weeks for longer-term follow-up (continuation phase).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was remission during the acute treatment phase (16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated [QIDS-C16] score ≤5 at 2 consecutive visits). Secondary outcomes included response (≥50% reduction in QIDS-C16 score or improvement on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale), relapse, and adverse effects.

Results

Among 1522 randomized patients (mean age, 54.4 years; men, 1296 [85.2%]), 1137 (74.7%) completed the acute treatment phase. Remission rates at 12 weeks were 22.3% (n = 114) for the switch group, 26.9% (n = 136)for the augment-bupropion group, and 28.9% (n = 146) for the augment-aripiprazole group. The augment-aripiprazole group exceeded the switch group in remission (relative risk [RR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.05-1.60]; P = .02), but other remission comparisons were not significant. Response was greater for the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) than for either the switch group (62.4%; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.09-1.29]) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.23]). No significant treatment differences were observed for relapse. Anxiety was more frequent in the 2 bupropion groups (24.3% in the switch group [n = 124] vs 16.6% in the augment-aripiprazole group [n = 84]; and 22.5% in augment-bupropion group [n = 114]). Adverse effects more frequent in the augment-aripiprazole group included somnolence, akathisia, and weight gain.

Conclusions and relevance

Among a predominantly male population with major depressive disorder unresponsive to antidepressant treatment, augmentation with aripiprazole resulted in a statistically significant but only modestly increased likelihood of remission during 12 weeks of treatment compared with switching to bupropion monotherapy. Given the small effect size and adverse effects associated with aripiprazole, further analysis including cost-effectiveness is needed to understand the net utility of this approach.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01421342.