Visual Schema Displacement Therapy versus Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy versus waitlist in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder: results of a randomized clinical trial.

Introduction: Visual Schema Displacement Therapy (VSDT) is a novel approach showing promise in mitigating distressing memories, akin to Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Objectives: This study aimed to determine the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of VSDT in individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), comparing it to EMDR therapy and a waitlist control condition (WLCC). It was hypothesized that the application of VSDT would be safe and PTSD symptoms significantly be reduced from both baseline to post-treatment and from baseline to follow-up in the VSDT and EMDR therapy conditions. Furthermore, we expected both treatments to be significantly more effective than the waitlist control. Moreover, we hypothesized that VSDT and EMDR therapy would be associated with significant improvements in symptoms of depression and general psychopathology. Method: Forty-six adults with PTSD were randomly assigned to VSDT, EMDR therapy, or WLCC, receiving six 90-minute sessions. Assessments included the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM)-5 (CAPS-5), PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) before, during, and 3 months post-treatment. Results: Bayesian analysis found no differences between VSDT and EMDR in PTSD symptom reduction but both outperformed WLCC. EMDR was superior to the WLCC in reducing symptoms of depression and general psychopathology. At 3-month follow-up, 58.3% of the participants in the VSDT condition no longer met the PTSD diagnostic criteria (41.2% EMDR therapy and 15.4% WLCC) with no difference between the two therapy conditions. Self-reported PTSD symptom reduction was significant in VSDT (d = 1.38) and EMDR (d = 1.40) but modest in WLCC (d = 0.39). Dropout rate was 19.3%, with no adverse events. Conclusion: This study supports VSDT's efficacy in treating PTSD, offering a valuable therapeutic option comparable to EMDR, with significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and no difference with EMDR or the control condition for depressive symptoms and general psychopathology, and no reported adverse events.

The effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of EMDR vs. EMDR 2.0 vs. the Flash technique in the treatment of patients with PTSD: study protocol for the ENHANCE randomized controlled trial.

Background: Several widely studied therapies have proven to be effective in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, there is still room for improvement because not all patients benefit from trauma-focused treatments. Improvements in the treatment of PTSD can be achieved by investigating ways to enhance existing therapies, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, as well as exploring novel treatments. The purpose of the current study is to determine the differential effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of EMDR therapy, an adaptation of EMDR therapy, referred to as EMDR 2.0, and a novel intervention for PTSD, the so-called Flash technique. The second aim is to identify the moderators of effectiveness for these interventions. This study will be conducted among individuals diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design. Methods: A total of 130 patients diagnosed with (complex) PTSD will be randomly allocated to either six sessions of EMDR therapy, EMDR 2.0, or the Flash technique. The primary outcomes used to determine treatment effectiveness include the presence of a PTSD diagnosis and the severity of PTSD symptoms. The secondary outcomes of effectiveness include symptoms of depression, symptoms of dissociation, general psychiatric symptoms, and experiential avoidance. All patients will be assessed at baseline, at 4-week post-treatment, and at 12-week follow-up. Questionnaires indexing symptoms of PTSD, depression, general psychopathology, and experiential avoidance will also be assessed weekly during treatment and bi-weekly after treatment, until the 12-week follow-up. Efficiency will be assessed by investigating the time it takes both to lose the diagnostic status of PTSD, and to achieve reliable change in PTSD symptoms. Treatment acceptability will be assessed after the first treatment session and after treatment termination. Discussion: This study is the first to investigate EMDR 2.0 therapy and the Flash technique in a sample of participants officially diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design. This study is expected to improve the available treatment options for PTSD and provide therapists with alternative ways to choose a therapy beyond its effectiveness by considering moderators, efficiency, and acceptability. Trial registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry at 10th November 2022 under registration number ISRCTN13100019.

The effect of EMDR versus EMDR 2.0 on emotionality and vividness of aversive memories in a non-clinical sample.

Background: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy is a treatment meant to reduce vividness and emotionality of distressing memories. There is accumulating evidence that working memory taxation is the core of the working mechanism of EMDR therapy and that EMDR derives its effect by taxing the working memory (WM) with a dual task while actively keeping a disturbing memory in mind. From a theoretical stance, based upon assumptions derived from the WM theory, the effectiveness of EMDR therapy could be improved by several adaptations. Objectives: To test the assumption that integrating these elements into the standard EMDR protocol would enhance EMDR therapy, this adapted version of EMDR (i.e. EMDR 2.0), was compared to standard EMDR in a laboratory setting. It was hypothesized that EMDR 2.0 would be more efficacious than standard EMDR, and show a greater decrease in emotionality and vividness than standard EMDR therapy. Our second hypothesis was that EMDR 2.0 would be more efficient than standard EMDR in that this variant needs less session time and a smaller number of sets (i.e. approximately 30 seconds of WM taxation). Method: Non-clinical participants (N = 62, 79% female, mean age = 35.21) with a disturbing autobiographical memory were randomly allocated to receive either EMDR or EMDR 2.0. Emotionality and vividness of the memory were measured pre- and post-intervention, and at 1- and 4-week follow-up. Results: The results showed no difference between EMDR and EMDR 2.0 in decreasing emotionality and vividness, and no difference in session time. However, participants in the EMDR 2.0 condition needed fewer sets than those in the standard EMDR condition. Conclusion: The notion that EMDR 2.0 is more efficient is partially supported by the results showing participants needed less sets than in standard EMDR to reach the same results. Future research with clinical samples is warranted.

Introducción: La terapia de desensibilización y reprocesamiento por movimientos oculares (EMDR en su sigla en inglés) es un tratamiento pensado para reducir la vivacidad y emocionalidad de las memorias angustiantes. Existe un cúmulo de evidencia que muestra que la tasa de la memoria de trabajo es el centro del mecanismo de trabajo de la terapia EMDR y que el EMDR deriva su efecto desde las tasas de memoria de trabajo (MT) con una tarea dual mientras mantiene activamente una memoria perturbadora en mente. Desde una postura teórica, basada en las asunciones derivadas de la teoría de la MT, la efectividad de la terapia EMDR podría mejorarse por medio de varias adaptaciones.Objetivos: Para probar la asunción que integrando estos elementos en el protocolo estándar EMDR para potenciar la terapia EMDR, esta versión adaptada de EMDR (es decir, EMDR 2.0), fue comparada con el EMDR estándar en un contexto de laboratorio. Fue hipotetizado que EMDR 2.0 sería más eficaz que el EMDR estándar, y mostraría una mayor disminución en la emocionalidad y vivacidad de la terapia EMDR estándar. Nuestra segunda hipótesis fue que EMDR 2.0 sería más eficiente que EMDR en que esta variante necesita menos tiempo de sesión, un número menor de sets (es decir, aproximadamente 30 segundos de tasas de MT).Método: Participantes no clínicos (N = 62, 79% mujeres, edad promedio = 35.21) con una memoria autobiográfica perturbadora fueron asignadas aleatoriamente a recibir ya sea EMDR o EMDR 2.0. La emocionalidad y la vivacidad de la memoria fueron medidos antes y después de la intervención, y seguimiento a 1 y a 4 semanas.Resultados: Los resultados mostraron no diferencias entre EMDR y EMDR 2.0 en disminuir la emocionalidad y la vivacidad, y no diferencia en el tiempo de la sesión. Sin embargo, los participantes en la condición de EMDR 2.0 necesitaron menos sets que aquellos en la condición EMDR estándar.Conclusión: La noción de que EMDR 2.0 es más eficiente es parcialmente apoyada por los resultados mostrando que los participantes necesitaron menos sets que en EMDR estándar para alcanzar los mismos resultados. Se justifican investigaciones futuras con muestras clínicas.

Barriers Influencing Vaccine Development Timelines, Identification, Causal Analysis, and Prioritization of Key Barriers by KOLs in General and Covid-19 Vaccine R&D.

A frequently mentioned factor holding back the introduction of new vaccines on the market are their prohibitively long development timelines. These hamper their potential societal benefit and impairs the ability to quickly respond to emerging new pathogens. This is especially worrisome since new pathogens are emerging at all-time high rates of over one per year, and many age-old pathogens are still not vaccine preventable.Through interviews with 20 key-opinion-leaders (KOLs), this study identified innovation barriers that increase vaccine development timelines. These innovation barriers were visualized, and their underlying causes revealed by means of qualitative root cause analysis. Based on a survey the innovation barriers were quantitatively ranked based on their relative impact on both regular, and Covid-19 vaccine development timelines. KOLs identified 20 key innovation barriers, and mapping these barriers onto the Vaccine Innovation Cycle model revealed that all phases of vaccine development were affected. Affected by most barriers is the area between the preclinical studies and the market entry. Difficult hand-off between academia and industry, lack of funding, and lack of knowledge of pathogen targets were often mentioned as causes. Quantitative survey responses from 93 KOLs showed that general vaccine development and Covid-19 vaccine development are impacted by distinct sets of innovation barriers. For the general vaccine development three barriers were perceived of the highest impact; limited ROI for vaccines addressing disease with limited market size, limited ROI for vaccines compared to non-vaccine projects, and academia not being able to progress beyond proof of principle. Of highest impact on Covid-19 vaccine development, are lack of knowledge concerning pathogen target, high risk of upscaling unlicensed vaccines, and proof of principle not meeting late-stage requirements. In conclusion, the current study demonstrates that barriers hampering timelines in vaccine development are present across the Vaccine Innovation Cycle. Prioritizing the impact of barriers in general, and in Covid-19 vaccine development, shows clear differences that can be used to inform policies to speed up development in both war and peace time.

A randomized controlled dismantling study of Visual Schema Displacement Therapy (VSDT) vs an abbreviated EMDR protocol vs a non-active control condition in individuals with disturbing memories.

Background: Visual Schema Displacement Therapy (VSDT) is a novel therapy for the treatment of fears and trauma-related mental health problems including PTSD. VSDT proved to be effective in reducing emotionality of aversive memories in healthy individuals in two previous randomized controlled trials and outperformed both a non-active control condition (CC) and an abbreviated version of EMDR therapy, a well-established first-line treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. Objectives: In an effort to enhance the understanding concerning the efficacy of VSDT, and to determine its active components, a dismantling study was conducted in individuals with disturbing memories in which the effects of VSDT were tested against EMDR therapy, a non-active CC and three different VSDT-protocols, each excluding or altering a hypothesized active component. Method: Participants (N = 144) were asked to recall an emotional aversive event and were randomly assigned to one of these six interventions, each lasting 8 minutes. Emotional disturbance and vividness of participants' memories were rated before and after the intervention and at one and four-week follow-up. Results: Replicatory Bayesian analyses supported hypotheses in which VSDT was superior to the CC and the EMDR condition in reducing emotionality, both directly after the intervention and at one week follow-up. However, at four-week follow-up, VSDT proved equal to EMDR while both treatments were superior to the CC. Concerning vividness the data also showed support for hypotheses predicting VSDT being equal to EMDR and both being superior to the CC in vividness reduction. Further analyses specifying differences between the abbreviated VSDT protocols detected no differences between these conditions. Conclusion: It remains unclear how VSDT yields its positive effects. Because VSDT appears to be unique and effective in decreasing emotionality of aversive memories, replication of the results in clinical samples is needed.

Antecedentes: La terapia de desplazamiento del esquema visual (VSDT por sus siglas en inglés) es una terapia novedosa para tratar los miedos y los problemas de salud mental relacionados con el trauma, incluido el TEPT. La VSDT demostró ser eficaz para reducir la emocionalidad de los recuerdos aversivos en individuos sanos en dos ensayos previos controlados aleatorizados y superó tanto a una condición de control no activa (CC por sus siglas en inglés) como a una versión abreviada de terapia EMDR, una terapia de primera línea bien establecida para el trastorno de estrés postraumático.Objetivos: En un esfuerzo para mejorar la comprensión de la eficacia de VSDT y para determinar sus componentes activos, se realizó un estudio de desmantelamiento en individuos con recuerdos perturbadores en el que se probaron los efectos del VSDT en contraste con la terapia EMDR, una CC no activa y tres diferentes protocolos de VSDT, cada uno excluyendo o alterando un componente activo hipotético.Método: Se pidió a los participantes (N= 144) que recordaran un evento aversivo emocionalmente y fueron asignados aleatoriamente a una de las seis intervenciones, cada una con una duración de 8 minutos. La alteración emocional y la viveza de los recuerdos de los participantes fueron calificados antes y después de la intervención y en el seguimiento luego de una y cuatro semanas.Resultados: Los análisis bayesianos replicativos apoyaron la hipótesis en las que VSDT fue superior a las condiciones CC y EMDR en la reducción de la emocionalidad, tanto directamente después de la intervención y a la semana de seguimiento. Sin embargo, a las cuatro semanas de seguimiento, VSDT resultó ser igual a EMDR mientras que ambos tratamientos fueron superiores al CC. Con respecto a la viveza, los datos también mostraron apoyo hacia las hipótesis que predicen que VSDT es igual a EMDR y que ambos son superiores a CC en la reducción de la viveza. Los análisis adicionales que especifican las diferencias entre los protocolos VSDT abreviados no detectaron diferencias entre estas condiciones.Conclusiones: No está claro cómo VSDT produce sus efectos positivos. Debido a que VSDT parece ser único y efectivo en disminuir la emocionalidad de los recuerdos aversivos, se requiere la replicación de estos estos resultados en muestras clínicas.

The Effects of the Flash Technique Compared to Those of an Abbreviated Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy Protocol on the Emotionality and Vividness of Aversive Memories.

Introduction: The Flash technique is a novel intervention aimed at rapidly decreasing the subjective disturbance of an aversive memory, thereby serving as a potential way of treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The protocol is used to stimulate clients to engage in positive imagery while being discouraged to actively recollect the targeted disturbing memory. Previous research into the Flash technique's efficacy shows promising results, yet controlled studies are lacking. Objectives: To test the efficacy of the Flash technique, it was compared to an abbreviated eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy protocol in a controlled experimental setting. We hypothesized that the Flash technique would lead to a larger decrease in the emotionality and vividness of an aversive autobiographical memory when compared to EMDR therapy. Our second hypothesis was that the procedure of the Flash technique would be evaluated more pleasant by its receiver. Method: The sample consisted of 60 non-clinical participants (mean age = 25.28 years; 73.33% female) who were able to recall an aversive autobiographical memory. They were randomized to either the Flash technique or the EMDR therapy condition. Measurements consisted of emotionality and vividness-ratings pre and post intervention, and at 1-week follow-up. Results: Bayesian analyses showed no differences between Flash and EMDR to the extent to which the emotionality and vividness of their memory was reduced. Afterward, the Flash technique was rated more pleasant than EMDR. Conclusion: The results support the claim that the Flash technique might be used as a brief and efficacious intervention for individuals suffering from disturbing memories. Although the results suggest that its efficacy does not differ from EMDR, the Flash technique seems to yield similar outcomes in a more pleasant way. Further research into its working mechanisms and in a clinical sample is required.